Why are evolutionists such hypocrites?

quote:

---

There are other examples of this sort of inconsistency. The theory of evolution insists that population genetical fitness, W, drives all organic progress. But, evolutionists insist that there is some sort of population problem, that can be solved by reproductive restraint, practised mostly by evolutionists. By their own theory, they are naturally selecting themselves out of existence.

---

the others have thoroughly spanked your pathetically thought out post but I will add my 2 cents. The origin of the (most recent) eugenics movement began with the complete lack of understanding by Francis Galton of Darwin's work. Darwin disagreed with Galton's view of fitness (which was extremely esoteric). It was evolutionists who finally demonstrated that Galton and his kind were completely wrong. Your ignorance of the subject though is somewhat excusable for someone who believes that farts are evidence for demons.

quote:

---

Or take the way they talk about science. Evolution, they will insist, is the best science, but try to find an evolutionist with some sort of understanding of sophisticated scientific methodology, the law of succession, or Bayes Theorem, for example. They will insist on double-blind experimentation, a technique almost impossible to apply to evolution/creation debates, or research supporting evolutionary thinking.

---

Find a creationist with any understanding of scientific methodology. You are a hypocrite Stephen...you needed Mr. Hambre's explanation of methodological naturalism to place your warped and whacky H-D in context...for someone claiming that we are ignorant of science you should be a bit better prepared i.e. not having to rely on an anonymous poster on a message board to clarify your own definition.
Your understanding of evolution is just an example of how pathetically shallow your understanding is of science in general.

quote:

---

All these inconsistencies are hypocritical.

---

Posting strawman arguments and projecting your own faults on others is not only hypocritical it is unethical...maybe one of your demon farts possessed your brain?

quote:

---

The very things evolutionists advocate form our lives, they themselves turn away from in practical matters.

---

Um, what exactly are evolutionists advocating for our lives? I have been an active biologist for the last 14 years and I have not used the ToE, Mendel's laws, Haldane's rule, much less quantum mechanics to advocate how people should live...but the religious nutbag right seem ever ready to tell everyone how they should live..seems you are projecting again.

quote:

---

The only exception I know of appeared in evolutionary nazi-ism, where the evolutionists in Hitler's regime encouraged Hitler's final solution and genocide, to create a master race.

---

Hitler's views on eugenics were a cut and paste job from the British and US eugenics movement and was hardly mentioned in Mein Kampf. In additon, eugenics was opposed by evolutionists and shown to be faulty by evolutionists. You conviently ignore the far greater influence of Christianity on Hitler (who was a catholic) and his concept of the master race...read Mein Kampf sometime...count the number of references to evolution versus God. Not to mention that Hitlers's happy followers were Christians who were perfectly willing and happy to do his bidding.

quote:

---

I hate hypocrisy, and this makes me wonder about the value of evolutionary thinking.

---

I dislike dishonest hypocrites like you..it makes me wonder about your ability to think.

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.

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

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

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.

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

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

quote:

---

Well, I'm glad I get you laughing.

---

Well, now that you bailed out of science, perhaps you could start a career as a comedian?

quote:

---

You respond so frequently with non-sequitors, or outright confusion, that I'm not sure that I ought to say any more.

---

This is a pretty pathetic attempt at evasion Stephen. You avoided all of my posts in the "Is it Science" forum. You have ignored Percy's direct challenges to you as well. If you cannot even clarify and defend your position on an internet chat forum, what kind of credibility do you think you could possibly have in an actual scientific setting?

quote:

---

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.

---

How about this instead, you do your prayer experiment and see if you can understand my posts or Percy's and give us some kind of coherent responses to our questions.

quote:

---

Not too optimistic, actually. But we can hope...

---

ditto

It is rather simple holmes. Stephen realizes he cannot answer any of the questions put to him by you, by Percy, or by me. Thus, he will engage in a game of evasion much like salty did.

quote:

---

I actually realize that I cannot make you understand what I am saying, because your minds do not admit ideas with plausibilities different from zero or one.

---

I find this highly ironic. While I accept that science is tentative and that even the best theories are in detail or even in large part wrong, you claim that I am the one who does not admit this tentativity. Meanwhile, you make claims of absolute certitude regarding untestable, unverifiable, and unfalsifiable anecdote and personal delusion. You have certainly topped salty for hypocrisy..congratulations!

quote:

---

But science depends on experiments, testing predictions. Replication. Ad hoc reasoning, by itself, is useless.

---

If you believe this to be true, why do you adhere to exactly the opposite?Since you are clearly incapable of addressing anything I say, how about answering Percy's simple questions? A high school biology student could produce a better effort.

What does it matter if artificial selection, such as dog breeding, produces morphological change more rapidly than natural selection?
And in some cases, it is not slowerSchliewen UK, Tautz D, Paabo S.
Sympatric speciation suggested by monophyly of crater lake cichlids.
Nature. 1994 Apr 14;368(6472):629-32.

quote:

---

Here's proof that you are lying. Demonstrate your acceptance that science is tentative by assigning a probability, your estimate of plausibility, between zero and one to the hypothesis that this universe is inhabited by malignant spiritual beings, of greater intelligence and power than any human, and able to remain outside our natural senses. Percy couldn't do it, and I doubt that you can either.

---

Uh, why am I lying? This paragraph demonstates that you do not in any way shape or form understand science with a probability of 0.9999999999999. There is no way to assign a fixed number of plausibility to anything spritual because it is a non observable, non testable, non falsifiable concept/belief. Every scientific advance in the history of our species has been made by excluding the supernatural so there is no reason for me to insert supernatural fairytales into methodological naturalist practice.Do I believe in your malignant spiritual beings? No..do I think they are plausible? 10^-173. Do I know for certain that there are phenomenon outside our current understanding and ability to understand currently..certianly. Do I think that MN will eventually give a tentative explanation for such phenomenon...I am quite certain. Do I think your methods will yield anything other than personal beliefs non applicable to the real world..no. [Replaced really small but too-wide number with exponential notation. --Admin]Your last sentence is the typical religious fundie threat of great peril for those who do not accept what they say. It clearly shows your affinity is much more towards the fire and brimstone self rightous prudes of the witch burning puritans than any scientist...face the truth that you have lost your ability to think scientifically, it already "got you" because everyone realizes this but you.[This message has been edited by Admin, 02-05-2004]

Um, artificial selection does not select for phenotypes with greater fitness. It is the selection of traits that the persons doing the selection want. A chihuahua would hardly have a competitive advantage relative to a wolf. Artificial selection in agriculture has produced a form of monoculture that is so unfit you have to protect your plants for their much more fitter natural counterparts...nature always does a better job than people. So your assertion is just plain wrong.I would not expect to find a greyhound fossil record as the rate at which greyhound phenotype was selected and the rather slim chance that all intermediates would form fossils in so short a time is rather minimal. On the other hand, one can get nice series of changes in other species even in the Pleistocene such as elephantids for example.The example I cited could be taken as an example of PE, but since almost all the new species are still in existance there is no reason to look for fossil cichlids..one can watch evolution in real time with them. And ultimatley, since mutations are discrete events, all evolution is ultimately punctuated. The many mutations that I have in my own genome not present in either of my parents are such punctuated evolutionary changes.I get the impression you lack familiarity with evolutionary theory and with any current evolutionary study. There are plenty of good books out there that might help.

quote:

---

Those guys want you to think that some sorts of things just aren't real, but only religious beliefs, so you won't inquire about them the way you inquire about prions. But, keep after sound scientific methodology. It will set you free from such traps.

---

It is funny that I go offline for 3 days and see that your illogical assertions are still being repeated ad naseum..or maybe ad saltyum
I have found a sound scientific methodology...in fact it is the only scientific methodology..and that is why I am a practicing scientist and you are reduced to ranting about demons on a message board.