Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/7


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Why are evolutionists such hypocrites?
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 31 of 111 (81211)
01-27-2004 5:30 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by Percy
01-27-2004 5:15 PM


Re: MN vs HD
quote:
I'd be interested to know if other people think I got it right:
Yes and no. In the most objective sense, your statement is correct. However I am one to allow people some quirks in definitions/terminology as long as they are consistent.
Along those lines I let Steve build his own version of what H-D and MN are. In this case I took MN to mean the methodology we use in science today which is based on those principles... not the strict definition, which you accurately described, is a metaphysical approach (though not along the lines as ID theorists like to portray).
Thus if he wants to call his methodology H-D, that is fine with me. Though it is a purely subjective version... perhaps we could call it BHD (for BayesianHD), or more accurately BSHD (for Bayesian Steven HD) to tell the difference.
My big problem is that he set these things up, and then could't defend his claims, so now he keeps changing his position.
I find it humorous that he came out attacking the common scientific method, and now claims he can't find a method anywhere.
So in summary, yes I think you were correct in your assessment if we take into account common usage of terms. If not, then your criticism wouldn't actually hold, but then again, he hasn't even been able to hold on to his own terms.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by Percy, posted 01-27-2004 5:15 PM Percy has not replied

  
Loudmouth
Inactive Member


Message 32 of 111 (81214)
01-27-2004 5:49 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by Stephen ben Yeshua
01-24-2004 9:13 AM


Re: Really sophisticated scientific discussion
quote:
Now, the mistakes here are actually understandable, the way the media and critics publically defamed Pauling. Of course, Pauling never claimed that vitamin C would cure cancer. He only acknowledged the consistent findings of compassionate and open-minded cancer doctors that massive doses of vitamin C usually resulted in terminal cancer patients living longer, and in much greater comfort.
I fail to see how this is a contest between creos and evos. This sounds more like a doctor fighting against an entrenched dogma, a problem sometimes found in the health industry. However, doctors have been burned by what seems good surgical techniques only to find that the actual benefit was equivalent to placebo ( Sham operations show knee surgery no better than placebo). Also, when people start producing slick infomercials trying to sell me coral calcium I become a little skeptical. Is the skepticism warranted? Maybe, but I don't base my health decisions on infomercials.
quote:
Ok, mis- or dis- information corrected, we can get to my point, which is that evolutionists are ugly people.
When have I been ugly? I may have attacked your theories, but to my knowledge I have never attacked you personally. I think we could have a great discussion over a few pints and still walk away without harsh words.
quote:
But, Darwinsderrier, no terrier, sorry,
Hehehe, sorry DT, but that is kind of funny.
quote:
Creationists argue that the Creator, in making primates, saw that they didn't need the gene to make vitamin C, and somehow biologically engineered its shut down. Evolutionists believe that the gene was zapped by a chemical or physical mutagen in some early primate, who got along so well without it, that it out-survived and out-reproduced all the other early primates around at the time. In either case, the primates then didn't need the gene because the food they were eating had plenty vitamin C.
God must have it in for sailors then. Scurvy was prominent during early nautical voyages. I would venture a guess humans, on average, ingest less vitamin C than any other primate due to our preferred diets. Perhaps our bodies have found ways to cope with lower vit C while other primates ingest enough fruits to where this never becomes a problem. The mutation in vit C synthase was probably not selected for, unless it was chromosomally linked with a beneficial mutation. Just like life, mistakes happen but they aren't always negative.
quote:
I see little evidence that Nature have carefully examined scientific philosophy and methodology.
Cite some specific evidence then. Surely you can pick some out. Just one caveat, primary literature is not meant to be a complete expose on every single angle of a given problem/hypothesis. Usually they delve into small intricacies and try and relate it to the whole. That and I don't want to badmouth Nature in case I ever submit a paper to them (or Science for that matter).
quote:
The theory of evolution, is a theory of an unobserved historical process.
You are wrong right off the bat. We can look at fossils that record historical species not seen today. The theory of evolution also ties into genetic distributions in populations that can be seen in real time in the present.
quote:
The process is supposedly ongoing, and if we assume that history repeats itself, if we can find present day events that follow the process, we have evidence supporting our notion that similar sorts of things took place in the past, and got us where we are.
It is not "history repeating itself" anymore than gravity repeating itself today. The theory states that the same mechanism that causes speciation today caused speciation in the past, or the same gravity mechanism that keeps planets orbiting the sun today is the same gravity that kept planets orbiting in the past. Do we have proof that it was the same mechanism for orbiting bodies in the distant past? Not absolute proof, but plenty of evidence.
quote:
But, we have to show that present day events are not driven by a Creator. This putative Creator has their own agenda, if He is really out there, and to show that current changes in species are evolving, and not an act of creation, we have to control, in some way, the hypothetical Creator. This, hypothetically, we are allowed to do through prayer. So, studies of, say bacterial adaptation in chemostats, need to be done with and without prayer. If there is no difference in the changes observed, we have evidence supporting natural as opposed to artificial selection. But, when these studies are done, there is a difference. (See references summarized by Dr. Larry Dossey.)
Show me the effect that prayer has on speciation. Any sources for this? It seems that you have decided to pin your hopes on a hypothesis with no support and excluding a theory that does have support, predicitive power, and a mechanism. Why? Is this personal preference or an objective analysis of the data?
quote:
Humanity continues to find hope in the fact that evolutionary thinking appears to castrate those who adopt it, so that they don't reproduce very well, and we don't have to put up with their thinking forever.
Reproductive capacity is different than reproductive rate, you seem to be confusing the two.
[This message has been edited by Loudmouth, 01-27-2004]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Stephen ben Yeshua, posted 01-24-2004 9:13 AM Stephen ben Yeshua has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by Percy, posted 01-27-2004 6:21 PM Loudmouth has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 33 of 111 (81224)
01-27-2004 6:21 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by Loudmouth
01-27-2004 5:49 PM


Re: Really sophisticated scientific discussion
Loudmouth writes:
However, doctors have been burned by what seems good surgical techniques only to find that the actual benefit was equivalent to placebo (Sham operations show knee surgery no better than placebo).
The placebo effect fascinates me, and joint operations also fascinate me, at least since I had a total hip replacement (THR) last April.
This has absolutely nothing to do with the discussion, but I've become pretty suspicious of the feedback doctors get about the results of surgery. There's no way to disguise THR, so there can be no single-blind studies. If you've had THR there is no possible way to disguise it because you can't walk unassisted for at least a few weeks, and the prosthesis shows up on X-rays.
I've talked to other THR patients about their results, and leaving out those who have run into complications almost everyone says how great it is. But there's a serious downside that either no one mentions, or that only I am prone to. The muscles are considerably weakened afterwards (they're severed and resewn doing surgery, plus one important muscle, the temper fascia latae (spelling probably way off) is completely de-enervated and has to have nerves recover before you can regain full strength, and this is unlikely to happen fully.
The decrease in strength is not any factor whatsoever unless you're trying to resume sports, which I am. I'm a tournament tennis player, and I hope to resume tournament play later this year. I'm not as fast to the ball, if I try to move too fast the muscles hurt, and the muscles can tire and significantly affect play, something that never, ever used to happen for that muscle set.
No other THR patient I've talked to, and I've talked to plenty at discussion boards, ever mentions this. Even other THR tennis players never mention this. So the possibilty is that I'm the only one, meaning my THR was less successful than most, or, and I believe more likely, most people won't admit such complaints, not even to themselves, because there is nothing to be done about it. However, I'm pretty sure I'm not very susceptible to the placebo effect. If you give me a placebo instead of asperin, my headache does not go away (I know this because the few times I've been given Tylenol or Ibuprofen when I thought I was getting asperin, I absolutely noticed that the headache did not go away). If you give me a placebo instead of a pain killer, the pain does not go away. I know this because when they switched me from Hydro-something-or-other to codeine a few days after surgery, the pain did not go away, and I fully expected the codeine to work since the switch was because my stomache wasn't tolerating the other medication.
So I'm assuming that all the other hip patients, including atheletes, are having the same problems as me, they just don't mention them or even acknowledge them. This likely gives doctors the wrong impression about the success of their surgeries. They need to collect much more objective data and not pay any attention post-surgery when the patient says, "Fine", when asked, "How ya doin'?"
--Percy
[Fix spelling. --Percy]
[This message has been edited by Percy, 01-29-2004]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by Loudmouth, posted 01-27-2004 5:49 PM Loudmouth has not replied

  
Stephen ben Yeshua
Inactive Member


Message 34 of 111 (81254)
01-27-2004 8:37 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by Percy
01-24-2004 10:04 AM


Re: Vitamin C requirements
Percy,
Well, I had to dig up the source that I got my belief from. It's a Keats Good Health Guide written by Jeffrey Bland. Looks like Gary Wade and Bland used the same source, or that one or the other was orginal, and the other cited him. Anyway, to allay your concerns, look here Not Found |The National Academies Press,
with a calculator handy. You'll get figures comparable to those I Bland, and Wade gave, as long as you consider optimal health, not simply protection from scurvy.
As to Levine's other paper, we are dealing here with rampant stupidity. Vitamin C is involved in more biochemical processes in the body than any other nutrient, save maybe calcium and magnesium. I would add potassium to that list, but that remains to be discovered scientifically. Anyway, we are talking about synthesis of collagen, the most commen biochemical agent in the body, maybe 35% of all protein. Cell membranes, another very widespread part of the body. Most other protein synthesis. Absorption of stuff. One source, not handy, lists 300 different functions. Including anti-oxidant work in the blood, and tissues, and synthesis of antibodies in the white blood cells. Now, we know that individuals, especially babies, given consistently high levels of C, if suddenly withdrawn, suddenly go into scurvy-like conditions. Probably the vitamin C requiring enzymes are inducible, not synthesized by the genome when C is low. When high levels of C have induced a lot of use of the vitamin, and then the vitamin is withdrawn, available C is seriously reduced by all the now available enzymes. Conversely, when steadily higher doses are given, it will take time for the body to make the enzymes that can use it.
So, let,s give increasing doses of vitamin C and see what happens in the blood, and maybe the white blood cells. That's two of the 300 compartments known to use the stuff, and not the two biggest users. So we saturate them with a five-fold RDA. And believe (on faith) that any excess is being thrown away, will always be thrown away?
Meanwhile, the animals making their own C are making 10 to 100 times this amount. Why? When cave-man diets are reconstructed, the figures are a little lower, maybe 7 to 20 times RDA. Meanwhile, to get healthy lab animals, especially under stress, we are talking 20 times. So, why the low values for humans? Kidney stones? See the study on primates with 1000 times RDA, and no toxic effect. Oh, humans were specially created by God to have low levels of ascorbate requirements? Pauling tried for decades to get a simple research grant funded, where he would give steadily higher doses of C to humans and observe many general health parameters. Constantly shot down by sneer review.
But your curious over-reaction to the story does perhaps hint at the answer to the question. As we are discussing on another thread. Vitamin C, in the form of mineral ascorbates, makes such a huge difference in the health and well-being of humans, that, of course, Satan would never leave that topic alone! What better way to defile the image of God, than to keep them away from mineral C if possible, to get them taking ascorbic acid, if they must. Lack of ascorbate causes addictions, stupidity, runny noses, bad skin, bad gums and breath, aching joints, arthritus, heart disease, diabetes, obesity....What a plan! Teach them evolution, so they quit praying, then make them irrationally opposed to a perfectly obvious nutritional requirement, that, when neglected, makes them incapable of rational thought and lukewarm about a longer life, high fitness, lots of babies, etc. We've discovered Satan's ugly stick!
Googling on ascorbate and the topics mentioned would teach you a lot, if you prayed before you tried to learn.
Stephen

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Percy, posted 01-24-2004 10:04 AM Percy has not replied

  
Mammuthus
Member (Idle past 6475 days)
Posts: 3085
From: Munich, Germany
Joined: 08-09-2002


Message 35 of 111 (81294)
01-28-2004 3:20 AM
Reply to: Message 27 by Stephen ben Yeshua
01-27-2004 1:33 PM


Stephan ben Hypocrite
quote:
Just because you are ugly people doesn't make you wrong.
followed by
quote:
Attempting to debate, but introducing ugly ad hominems. When the subject of the debate is "Why are you evolutionists such badly behaved people,"
followed by
quote:
Your attacks on me, of course, are an honor to me
Stephan, please either lower the dosage of your medication or up the voltage of your shock therapy. You can't even remain consistent and non-hypocritical in a post this short.
The fact of the matter is that you have not demonstrated that anyone but yourself lacks an understanding of science. You have yet to show that you understand how methodological naturalism works. You have absolutely no concept of what a testable and falsifiable hypothesis is. You also clearly have only the most shallow understanding of evolution or anything to do with modern biology. This is not an ad hominem attack, this is a fact as demonstrated by you over and over in your posts.
quote:
Your attacks on me, of course, are an honor to me.
Which also shows you lack another key aspect of a good scientist which is to question why something occurs and examine the possible varriables that contribute to it. You take everything said to you as an attack and rather than examine anyone elses argument you take it as an excuse to not listen to anything anybody says. You are suffering from an extreme delusion of grandeur.
The real question of this thread should be why is Stephan ben Yeshua so completely unconvincing? Why does he have to rely on statements such as..
quote:
Just because you are ugly people doesn't make you wrong
..all the while whining about ad hominem attacks?
You are not only being a hypocrite, you are also being extremely dishonest with yourself to think your behavior on this board has been somehow exemplary.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by Stephen ben Yeshua, posted 01-27-2004 1:33 PM Stephen ben Yeshua has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by Darwin's Terrier, posted 01-28-2004 4:55 AM Mammuthus has replied
 Message 41 by Stephen ben Yeshua, posted 01-29-2004 9:27 PM Mammuthus has replied

  
Darwin's Terrier
Inactive Member


Message 36 of 111 (81300)
01-28-2004 4:55 AM
Reply to: Message 35 by Mammuthus
01-28-2004 3:20 AM


Re: Stephan ben Hypocrite
..all the while whining about ad hominem attacks?
Yeah, but 'Darwinsderrier' was pretty funny...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by Mammuthus, posted 01-28-2004 3:20 AM Mammuthus has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by Mammuthus, posted 01-28-2004 5:57 AM Darwin's Terrier has not replied

  
Mammuthus
Member (Idle past 6475 days)
Posts: 3085
From: Munich, Germany
Joined: 08-09-2002


Message 37 of 111 (81303)
01-28-2004 5:57 AM
Reply to: Message 36 by Darwin's Terrier
01-28-2004 4:55 AM


Re: Stephan ben Flatulant
I thought so to
Maybe I am demon possessed...no problem..I'll just fart those demons right outa my hair..just going to fart those demons right outa my hair

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by Darwin's Terrier, posted 01-28-2004 4:55 AM Darwin's Terrier has not replied

  
Stephen ben Yeshua
Inactive Member


Message 38 of 111 (81508)
01-29-2004 2:44 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by Silent H
01-27-2004 5:08 PM


Re: MN vs HD
Holmes,
You say,
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?
It was an insult, not an ad hominem. And an allusion to a vague sense that MN ought to be more popular if it was so useful. Sort of a "If you're so smart, why aren't you rich?"
But thank you for the chance to review my history of becoming an H-D scientist. I was a Princeton on a post-doc, and Henry Horn astutely called our efforts to legitimize our ecological research as "Physics Envy." We were willing to indulge in all sorts of wierd ideas, because there was no way we could out-weird quantum mechanics. We were willing to replace "proved forever" ideas, like Darwinism, retaining their usefulness while admitting that they weren't exactly true. Like the physicists were doing with Newton. We were willing to forgive data fudging, since so many of the great Physics heros, (and Mendel) were clearly guilty of this, while discovering great stuff. Replication cleaned all that stuff up.
Great moments.
I remained baffled by your insistence in seeing me as a protagonist for Xianity. You are in terrible trouble, but conversion to that religion would only deepen it.
Are familiar enough with the Bible, to appreciate how much of a blessing it is when you and others insult me? How it confirms the predictions made there? What a great reward it brings to me?
Just wondering.
Stephen

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by Silent H, posted 01-27-2004 5:08 PM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by Brad McFall, posted 01-29-2004 2:56 PM Stephen ben Yeshua has replied
 Message 42 by Silent H, posted 01-30-2004 12:34 AM Stephen ben Yeshua has not replied

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5032 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 39 of 111 (81511)
01-29-2004 2:56 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by Stephen ben Yeshua
01-29-2004 2:44 PM


Re: MN vs HD
if Simon Levin's ecology of tide flood waters is not physics envy (he left Cornell for Princeton)in the sense that may be between you and HOlmes then I can assure you that it is not as enligtened as phsycists were doing with Newton. I simply tried to interes Simon in the application of Hilbert's program and incidence geometry to polymophic encoding of data and THAT was "too philosophical" for him. L. P. Williams' failure to see this my way I can understand as he thinks F-day was on all and only about e charge but Levin and I assume the Priceton group on complexity IS about doing as you suggested unfortunately it is preceisly becuase of all the errors that way of doing APPLIED MATH in biology that I chose to step out of it. I thought incidence geometry despite the step was not too far out. But that was then and this is now. XML with only one root will never work with a baraminology of faceted classifications but this would split even the simple congruent incidence I was proposing in the 80s. I dont know what you and H are talking about but I think I do follow and understand you observations of at P. Sometimes I thnik as I said we give too much to ecology because it is only the "outside". Ecologists are not falling into this trap but it might be time indeed to rap up the modeling in ecology with some other kind of biology but first let me see if I understand this thread better.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by Stephen ben Yeshua, posted 01-29-2004 2:44 PM Stephen ben Yeshua has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by Stephen ben Yeshua, posted 01-29-2004 8:46 PM Brad McFall has not replied

  
Stephen ben Yeshua
Inactive Member


Message 40 of 111 (81562)
01-29-2004 8:46 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by Brad McFall
01-29-2004 2:56 PM


Re: MN vs HD
Brad,
We need to discuss this on another thread, because I saw neither evidence that evolutionists behave badly (Levin's "too philosophical" seemed more honest than a cop-out), or any explanation as to why they carry on so rudely in your post. Let's get over to The Best Scientific Methodology, since what I understand you are dealing with is the integration of intuitively complex mathematical insights into the social framework of the science.
Stephen

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by Brad McFall, posted 01-29-2004 2:56 PM Brad McFall has not replied

  
Stephen ben Yeshua
Inactive Member


Message 41 of 111 (81563)
01-29-2004 9:27 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by Mammuthus
01-28-2004 3:20 AM


Re: Stephan ben Hypocrite
M.
I can tell you're starting to have fun, now!
The fact of the matter is that you have not demonstrated that anyone but yourself lacks an understanding of science.
The ad hoc whining about "flaws" in the Bible Code Studies, Theomatics, and the prayer studies, and the appeal to some sort of majority authority rejection of these, are both unscientific. The simple ignoring of the Bible Code studies by evolutionists, which went unchallenged for 5 years, was unscientific. The use of data that confirm both artificial selection by God, and natural selection, to confirm evolution, is unscientific. The failure to find strong inference tests of evolution vs creation, and the explaining away of any that anyone else finds, is unscientific. Evolutionists believe their idea, and to Hell with the data. That's not science.
You have yet to show that you understand how methodological naturalism works.
I don't know what it is, I don't actually think it exists. Just words that evolutionists have made up to make it appear that they have a plan and are doing science by some methodology. Whenever I ask any of them to explain it, I get nothing. The only people discussing it on the web that I have found so far are critics, who are complaining about evolutionists functioning with a pre-set bias that no amount of science or methodology or data can dislodge.
You have absolutely no concept of what a testable and falsifiable hypothesis is.
So, you believe in absolutes, do you? This sort of exaggerated remark simply reveals your own failure to deal with your "orginal sin" the dogmatic opinionation, that has to see things in an all or nothing light. But, as I have said elsewhere, Malachi 3:8-12 sets up a test that proves or falsifies the orthodox theology hypothesis. The reproductive rate comparison falsifies evolution. So, I have some concept. But, I'm sure you'll find some reason to ignore or dismiss me on these matters. That's what non-scientists do. Scientists look at the data, anecdotal included, then set up tests and replications. But you're an evolutionist. You wouldn't know about such things. Or so I am hypothesizing.
Which also shows you lack another key aspect of a good scientist which is to question why something occurs and examine the possible varriables that contribute to it.
Crudely put, but, lookee there, you do know something about science! Now the question is, why are you seeing the splinter in my eye, but ignoring the log in your own? You are clearly talking about yourself here, far more than me. I mean, I look at your rude remarks, and see that they appear to be inspired. Not by God, of course. He's a gentleman and only helps when invited. So, by Satan, of course. At least, that's a possible variable contributing to your sarcasm. My rudeness, of course, may be Satanic as well, but at least I asked God to help me frame some inspired insults in this contests.
You take everything said to you as an attack
See, there you go again. "Everything?"
You are suffering from an extreme delusion of grandeur.
You are professionally qualified to make this remark? Or are you suffering from the delusion that you are such a great and grand psycho-analyst that you can make such a judgment, publically, over the internet?
You are not only being a hypocrite, you are also being extremely dishonest with yourself to think your behavior on this board has been somehow exemplary.
My assertion, besides being a truthist, is that I choose to walk like Yeshua walked. If you check out the way He talked to the hypocrites, you'll find my remarks quite consistent. My behavior is intended to be an example of how a non-hypocritical, non-christian believer acts.
But, of course, I will screw up, and will admit it when it is brought to my attention in a convincing manner. Only evolutionists demand perfection, at least in studies that generate data that conflicts with their paradigm. And in those that argue with them. Hypocrites rarely will say they made a mistake.
Stephen

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by Mammuthus, posted 01-28-2004 3:20 AM Mammuthus has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by Mammuthus, posted 01-30-2004 3:36 AM Stephen ben Yeshua has replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 42 of 111 (81604)
01-30-2004 12:34 AM
Reply to: Message 38 by Stephen ben Yeshua
01-29-2004 2:44 PM


quote:
It was an insult, not an ad hominem.
Ah, the difference between full of shit and full of merde. Either way showing your usual hypocritical nature.
quote:
And an allusion to a vague sense that MN ought to be more popular if it was so useful.
YOU CAME HERE TO POST AGAINST EVOLUTIONARY THEORY AND THE SCIENTIFIC METHODS FROM WHICH IT EMERGED!!!!
EVOLUTIONARY THEORY IS THE MOST POPULAR SCIENTIFIC THEORY!!!! THIS IS BECAUSE MOST SCIENTISTS USE MN BASED RESEARCH METHODS!!!!
If you don't believe research methods exist in science, or that they are not based on MN, or that they are not currently the most popular then what the hell have your threads been about?
quote:
But thank you for the chance to review my history of becoming an H-D scientist.
Was it when I dropped my hat, or when the wind shifted direction?
quote:
I remained baffled by your insistence in seeing me as a protagonist for Xianity...
(yet)
...Are familiar enough with the Bible, to appreciate how much of a blessing it is when you and others insult me? How it confirms the predictions made there? What a great reward it brings to me?
Could you pick a position and stick with it?
quote:
Just wondering.
Yeah, so am I.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by Stephen ben Yeshua, posted 01-29-2004 2:44 PM Stephen ben Yeshua has not replied

  
Mammuthus
Member (Idle past 6475 days)
Posts: 3085
From: Munich, Germany
Joined: 08-09-2002


Message 43 of 111 (81609)
01-30-2004 3:36 AM
Reply to: Message 41 by Stephen ben Yeshua
01-29-2004 9:27 PM


Re: Stephan ben Hypocrite
quote:
The ad hoc whining about "flaws" in the Bible Code Studies, Theomatics, and the prayer studies, and the appeal to some sort of majority authority rejection of these, are both unscientific.
Considering you make constant appeals to your own imagined authority, this sentence of yours is rather amusing. And it is not whining about the bible code studies or prayer studies. They are deeply flawed and your lack of critical thinking skills and complete lack of desire to actually see them subjected to rigorous analysis clearly shows how weak your position is.
quote:
The use of data that confirm both artificial selection by God, and natural selection, to confirm evolution, is unscientific.
Sober up Stephen, this sentence is rather unintelligible even for you. And nobody, except you, believes that data gathered on the effects of artificial or natural selection has any bearing on the existence or non existence of god/gods/pink unicorns.
quote:
The failure to find strong inference tests of evolution vs creation, and the explaining away of any that anyone else finds, is unscientific. Evolutionists believe their idea, and to Hell with the data.
More like the success of evolution to explain both natural observations and experimental support from multiple disciplines is exactly the opposite of creationism which has no data, anecdotes, and circular arguments from supposed authority. Challenging data anyone presents IS scientific. If your data does not withstand scrutiny it is worthless. Your desire for people to accept what you say is absolutely not scientific. Not forgetting that you have never provided any data but that is a different problem. Creationists believe their non testable non falsifiable musings in many different flavors...to hell if they don't have ANY data.
quote:
I don't know what it is, I don't actually think it exists. Just words that evolutionists have made up to make it appear that they have a plan and are doing science by some methodology. Whenever I ask any of them to explain it, I get nothing. The only people discussing it on the web that I have found so far are critics, who are complaining about evolutionists functioning with a pre-set bias that no amount of science or methodology or data can dislodge.
Then take some intro science classes Stephen, evolutionists did not invent the concept of methodological naturalism..sheesh, don't you know anything?
quote:
So, you believe in absolutes, do you?
Where did you get this from what I said?
quote:
This sort of exaggerated remark simply reveals your own failure to deal with your "orginal sin" the dogmatic opinionation, that has to see things in an all or nothing light.
So you can't answer the question and are going to merely be evasive?
quote:
But, as I have said elsewhere, Malachi 3:8-12 sets up a test that proves or falsifies the orthodox theology hypothesis.
Um, you cannot prove a hypothesis Stephen. And given your concept of testable and falsifiable has so far been presented as Testable= Stephen thinks it is possible Falsifiable=Stephen does not believe in it.
quote:
The reproductive rate comparison falsifies evolution.
Wow, you must be getting some really nice drugs to come up with this. You do realize you are falling in with the eugenics movement of Galton with this misconstruction of fitness don't you? He also believed that the wealthy, educated, and upper political class were clearly more "fit" even though they are exactly the group that produces the fewest offspring. Funny that you make a 150 year old mistake...wake up..it's 2004.
quote:
So, I have some concept.
But not of science Stephen..and certainly not of evolution.
quote:
But, I'm sure you'll find some reason to ignore or dismiss me on these matters.
Nope, I am still holding out for you to actually flesh out your arguments more to see where your bizarre logic comes from. There was another former scientist on this board who sounded very similar to you and I am curious to see if any of your ideas converge.
quote:
That's what non-scientists do.
And people who cannot support what they say usually repeat things like this as a mantra.
quote:
Scientists look at the data, anecdotal included, then set up tests and replications.
Ok, show me how any of the following studies would benefit from anecdotal evidence.
Gilad Y, Wiebe V, Przeworski M, Lancet D, Paabo S. Loss of Olfactory Receptor Genes Coincides with the Acquisition of Full Trichromatic Vision in Primates.
PLoS Biol. 2004 Jan;2(1):E5. Epub 2004 Jan 20.
Thalmann O, Hebler J, Poinar HN, Paabo S, Vigilant L.
Unreliable mtDNA data due to nuclear insertions: a cautionary tale from analysis of humans and other great apes.
Mol Ecol. 2004 Feb;13(2):321-35.
Hofreiter M, Rabeder G, Jaenicke-Despres V, Withalm G, Nagel D, Paunovic M, Jambrebreve;sic G, Paabo S.
Evidence for Reproductive Isolation between Cave Bear Populations.
quote:
But you're an evolutionist. You wouldn't know about such things. Or so I am hypothesizing.
Whatever
quote:
My rudeness, of course, may be Satanic as well, but at least I asked God to help me frame some inspired insults in this contests.
Yes, you clearly must have Satan's Guide to Great Jokes and Comebacks tthere Stephen...glad to see you hold yourself to such lofty ideals...but really, how do you expect us to top your insults when you revere farts? It is hard to compete with that
quote:
See, there you go again. "Everything?"
Everything substantial...your posts have been becoming less coherent, more repetitive, and more insulting...sounds like a ben Yeshua flameout.
quote:
You are professionally qualified to make this remark? Or are you suffering from the delusion that you are such a great and grand psycho-analyst that you can make such a judgment, publically, over the internet?
Why would I have to be professionally qualified to recognize that you overrate yourself as a scientist in virtually every post and that you cling to completely non-scientific concepts despite the evidence against them? We are even, I am not a psychologist but you are not professionally qualified to make judgements publicly over the internet on the subject of evolution since you have demonstrated repeatedly that you don't have the slightest idea about what the theory states or the evidence that supports it.
quote:
My assertion, besides being a truthist, is that I choose to walk like Yeshua walked. If you check out the way He talked to the hypocrites, you'll find my remarks quite consistent. My behavior is intended to be an example of how a non-hypocritical, non-christian believer acts.
Yes, you are great example of how one should not be...non-hypocritical..LOL! I like you Stephen, you make me laugh at least a couple of times a day.
quote:
But, of course, I will screw up, and will admit it when it is brought to my attention in a convincing manner. Only evolutionists demand perfection, at least in studies that generate data that conflicts with their paradigm. And in those that argue with them. Hypocrites rarely will say they made a mistake.
Interesting, where have you ever admitted you were in error? And don't flatter yourself. The debates on this forum are mild kindergarten play compared to the arguements in the literature and in meetings among evolutionists about specific mechanisms and events. And hypotheses crash and burn all the time in the biological sciences including evolutionary biology. Amazing that you are ignorant of this for such prominenent scientist..oh excuse me, I mean truthist

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by Stephen ben Yeshua, posted 01-29-2004 9:27 PM Stephen ben Yeshua has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by Stephen ben Yeshua, posted 01-31-2004 12:27 PM Mammuthus has replied

  
Stephen ben Yeshua
Inactive Member


Message 44 of 111 (81802)
01-31-2004 12:27 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by Mammuthus
01-30-2004 3:36 AM


Re: Stephan ben Hypocrite
M.
Well, I'm glad I get you laughing.
You respond so frequently with non-sequitors, or outright confusion, that I'm not sure that I ought to say any more.
Do this prayer experiment. Pray agnostically for understanding of what I am saying. Like, "Jehovah, if You are out there, give me a spirit of understanding, to know what Stephen is trying to say." Maybe that would help.
Not too optimistic, actually. But we can hope...
Stephen

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by Mammuthus, posted 01-30-2004 3:36 AM Mammuthus has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by Silent H, posted 01-31-2004 12:51 PM Stephen ben Yeshua has replied
 Message 48 by Mammuthus, posted 02-02-2004 3:44 AM Stephen ben Yeshua has not replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 45 of 111 (81809)
01-31-2004 12:51 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by Stephen ben Yeshua
01-31-2004 12:27 PM


Re: Stephan ben Hypocrite
quote:
You respond so frequently with non-sequitors, or outright confusion, that I'm not sure that I ought to say any more.
You could always respond to the direct questions. How about this one for starters...
quote:
Ok, show me how any of the following studies would benefit from anecdotal evidence.
Gilad Y, Wiebe V, Przeworski M, Lancet D, Paabo S. Loss of Olfactory Receptor Genes Coincides with the Acquisition of Full Trichromatic Vision in Primates.
PLoS Biol. 2004 Jan;2(1):E5. Epub 2004 Jan 20.
Thalmann O, Hebler J, Poinar HN, Paabo S, Vigilant L.
Unreliable mtDNA data due to nuclear insertions: a cautionary tale from analysis of humans and other great apes.
Mol Ecol. 2004 Feb;13(2):321-35.
Hofreiter M, Rabeder G, Jaenicke-Despres V, Withalm G, Nagel D, Paunovic M, Jambrebreve;sic G, Paabo S.
Evidence for Reproductive Isolation between Cave Bear Populations.
Not too optimistic, actually. But we can hope...
And of course we can then address anything in analytical or physical chemistry. Anecdotes go over great as evidence there... evidence that one has no clue what one is doing.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by Stephen ben Yeshua, posted 01-31-2004 12:27 PM Stephen ben Yeshua has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by Stephen ben Yeshua, posted 01-31-2004 2:46 PM Silent H has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024