Why are evolutionists such hypocrites?

quote:

---

setting vitamin C requirements for humans at a level that is about one-tenth that required by every other mammal or primate studied. Now, what's that all about?

---

There are several problems in this quandry...1) What does this have to do with "evolutionists"? I believe in evolution and do not necessarily adhere to every dietary requirement level they post. I have found vitamin C to be a very good way to boost my health, and so take more than the "required" amount. Of course there can be too much as well. I once hit my body's limit and ended up in the doctor's office with a horrible case of hives... my body was so on edge it began attacking itself!2) You say that their requirement is 1/10th that required by other mammal or primates. I am unsure how you derived this figure but I'll assume it is true. Why couldn't it be that the minimum requirement for humans to stave off illness due to vitamin C depravation is 1/10th other mammals or primates? Other than incredulity I saw no argument why this could not be the case.3) Where in creationist literature have you found studies and recommendations based on their studies, which counter the NAS recommendations on vitamin C? For a person that advocates prayer in medicine, it seems odd to knock a low recommendation for vitamin C, and not at the same time marvel at Xian scientists who recommend no medical aid at all... even in times of emergency. To them a "dose" of prayer is all that is needed. I'll wager there are more cases of illness and death resulting from creationist prayer recommendations than scurvy if humans follow NAS requirements.

quote:

---

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.

---

Again, what do evolutionary theorists have to do with this? I think you are talking about conservation biologists, but I have even heard creationists talking about how our over populating the planet is a sign that the end times are soon.But for sake of argument I'll forget that issue...1) Please cite one reference by a science journal that says evolution suggests that overpopulation can and should be solved by reproductive restraints, particularly "mostly by evolutionists".2) Why would limits on reproduction select us out of existence? We now live longer and healthier lives. We do not need as many births in order to ensure the passing of genes to the next generation. We also have made ourselves less reliant on purely genetic characteristics by using technology (for warmth, food, shelter, defense). It is this fact, coupled with relatively similar birth rates as our ancestors which has created an "overpopulation" problem. We now consume way too many resources much too quickly and could very well "eat" ourselves out of existence ("eat" in the broad sense of "consume"). All that would be necessary is to artificially limit reproduction, so that population growth would reflect what would be seen if we didn't have our advancing technology.If you are uncertain that a species can move in and destroy other populations (and eventually themselves) by overpopulation, then I suggest reading more on the subject.

quote:

---

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.

---

This is not cool Steve. You cannot simply open another thread and pretend as if you had not lost debates on this very subject area in two other threads. As it stands, it appears you have found many evolutionists with an understanding of sophisticated scientific methodology.If you could not win a debate to support your methodology, perhaps it is you who are lacking understanding of either sophisticated science, or necessary logic.You claim double-blind experiments are "nearly impossible"... this means they are not "impossible". No one said getting at truths would be easy. Experiments can be very complex and time consuming. I shudder to think of the will required by Mendel (a monk by the way), but it eventually revealed a truth which opened up knowledge in genetics and evolution. Could I repeat again that this excruciating work was done by a religious person?In fact, the only advantage I have really heard you mention anywhere is that your Hypothetical-Deductive reasoning method will get truths faster. This seems a big issue with you. Like maybe you feel the need to say you know NOW. But what you have to realize (a post of mine you have yet to answer), is that H-D posits too many truths which must still be widdled down to greater plausibility. That is what Methodological Naturalism does... and does well.Oh yeah, I would also like some real stats on how many creationists have an understanding of the concepts you mentioned, compared to evolutionists.

quote:

---

evolutionary nazi-ism

---

Never heard of it. Are you talking about the "eugenics" program which essentially bastardized the theory of evolution from a descriptor into a cookbook?How is this different from creationists claiming, based on divine revelation, that people of their own race/religion are the only pure people and so must conquer/kill everyone else?

quote:

---

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

---

That's quite a hypocritical statement to make.

---

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

You are a creationist Steve. You are even a Xian creationist. If you want to subclassify yourself as a True Xian Creationist, that's fine. I'll refer to you as TXC specifically, rather than lump you in with the mainstream Xian Creationists.

quote:

---

My question about evolutionists was only posed because I have some hope that evolutionists may want to change their minds, to improve their behavior.

---

Did you read my post? I use vitamin C. I have friends (evos) that use vitamin C. There is a limit (and let me tell you it can cause more than diahrea) but it is useful in boosting the immune system.So why are you lumping all evos together? You seem to have no problem defining yourself as different from other creationists, yet this cannot be true for evos?I have yet to see you explain how the TOE has anything to do with vitamin C, other than trying to determine why we do not make it in our own bodies.

quote:

---

They go about prayer the same way the NAS goes about vitamin C, operating at some pathetic minimalist standard.

---

Once again, throw out the data that stands against you.

quote:

---

Interesting question!

---

I found your answer more enlightening. Why didn't you? The TOE says nothing about missions, and no evolutionist has a mandate to think of our current population as an emergency under the TOE. Concerns of overpopulation are related to conservation biology and if an evolutionist wants to support that cause that is their personal opinion and cause. [quote]Thus, the evolutionists are sink populations, the creationists, source populations.{/quoteAre you seriously saying that belief in evo/creo are related to genetics? Nowhere do evos say such a thing. Belief systems are not a phenotype. And what are you talking about saying evos believe phenotypes can be amplified by culture?All of this shows a serious lack of knowledge regarding evolution and genetics.

quote:

---

I thought I won those debates!

---

You said I changed your mind... and you also eventually realized that H-D was a subset of MN, which I was saying from just about the beginning.You have also left points unchallenged.How did you win?By the way there is a refereed area of this site called the Great Debate. I'm sure you'd find many people willing to face you there.

quote:

---

Let's see you explain the law of succession to darwinsterrier.

---

I never said everyone knew everything. As it stands I am waiting for you to explain evolutionary theory correctly to me.

quote:

---

I alone of the two of us appears to have grasped that MN, a general set of rules for scientific thinking, contains H-D, a specific set of rules.

---

Well, to you alone this might be apparent. However I was pretty well implying that H-D was a subset (essentially it is a precursor) to MN. Even after your "revelation" (by going to MrH's thread) I stated I understood this.You have yet to challenge my criticism that H-D is a shotgun approach, that while indicating many paths are possible up the mountain, not all will be correct (or the best). As exploration parties try the different paths, eventually they'll need MN to decide between all their contrary experiences.

quote:

---

In short, I know, now, everything that you know, but you still have failed to learn what I know. Maybe I am wrong about this. All you have to do to correct me is explain how Bayes Theorem justifies MN.

---

That first statement is easy to make. But let me address the last point. We do not live in Bayes Theorem. We live in reality, and that includes many varied experiences and experimental results. What YOU need to do is explain to ME, how the reality of differential results justifies H-D to make conclusions/judgements rather than MN.And of course you still have to explain how occam's razor supports your animal-human-demon-darkmatter-religion theory, rather than the human-makes-mistake model.

quote:

---

You'll have to explain the logic of this.

---

So what you are saying is that you don't know everything I do? I'll tell you what. Why don't you ask your God what was meant and get back to me with what he said.

---

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

quote:

---

You calling those positions "indefensible" while I was defending them, and calling what I was advocating "ridiculous" proves that I won. What else can you say, to keep the truth out of your mind?

---

H-Y-P-O-C-R-I-T-E

---

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

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)

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:

---

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)

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)

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)

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)

1) All questions don't have to have question marks, or the word please. Mammuthus' request was clearly a REQUEST, which is a form of question.2) You have stated that H-D is the best method for science and it includes anecdotal evidence. That tends to IMPLY that H-D and therefore anecdote is fine for any and all research.3) If this is not the case then how is the line determined for what research program should allow it and which should not? This does not cut it: "It depends on what people are normally recording as anecdotes, and whether the hypothesis under study makes predictions about those sorts of events."4) What reasons do you have that the specific research programs you tout, pass this test and so are allowed to use anecdote?5) If H-D (to be clear for Percy, YOUR version of HD: BSHD) can only be used in some situations, why should we bother with it at all?It appears only to be useful when your faith is at stake and at no other time. That's bad science.

---

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

Ahhhhh... I never met this salty fellow, though I have heard a lot about him.Nothing good of course.

---

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

quote:

---

You note,

---

And then you fail to respond to the overall point. You just reasserted your original idea.You know I DO GET what you are saying? I (and others) are pointing out where it is WRONG or DEFICIENT. Simply REPEATING your initial point does not address the problems or deficiencies.

quote:

---

what good is science if it cannot deal with the big questions?

---

Who said science can't deal with the big questions? How things work are the biggest questions we have.Ohhhhhhhh, I get it. The BIG questions mean whether God and demons exist or not. Well one can assume that I guess, just as one can assume whether Sauron knows if his ring of power has been found or not is a big question. See they both are equally "supernatural", by which I mean I have no evidence except a book saying they exist.For certain, supernatural entities can become a part of science, the only catch being they have to make it off of the printed page and exert some sort of observable phenomemon (even if indirectly) on something besides our imaginations.Otherwise the best we have is the scientific explanation that such entities are written about in book X.To assume that they do exist, and then throw out good research procedures in order to gain evidence to support that position, is circular.

---

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

quote:

---

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.

---

Accepting the tentativity of science does not mean one must believe it is possible to assign numerical probabilities of truth regarding grand theories, at least not in any way that is nonarbitrary.If you forced me to place a numerical value on plausibility of beings we have no experience of, and may never have experience of, yet with specific defining characterics such as "malign" or "greater intelligence and power than humans", I'd have to say: 0.0001%Now you'll have to explain why when creating research to adjust this number, we must abandon MN.

quote:

---

get the truth before the truth gets you.

---

The truth gets you how? See... this is the exact kind of drivel that makes your whole argument look silly.

---

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

quote:

---

I remain unsure that MN exists, since no one seems willing to discuss it in detail,

---

Demons exist to you, but you are uncertain about MN?What you have found is not a hesitancy to discuss it in detail, what you have found is an audience not understanding why they would need to do so, to someone who claims to have such scientific experience and ability to find knowledge for himself.Rather than go through things here I have already pointed you to sources. If you can't find them by googling, then go to a library and pick up a book on modern research methodology. Or get back in the game by taking a course in the physical sciences (maybe chemistry?).I have also sketched out MN based experiments for some of your hypotheses. You could work backward from them if you want to figure it out.But the main thing is, YOU came here criticizing modern research methods. Are you now saying that you came here criticizing something you had no idea existed? Then what were you comparing/contrasting against?

quote:

---

can you think of any prediction from the hypothesis that malignant, spiritual beings, of greater intelligence and power than we have, exist in our ecosystem, that we could test to falsify the hypothesis?

---

YES... unless a part of your description of these beings is that they can remain unseen/undetectable to all tests. At that point they become POINTLESS.Or if attempts at identification are enough to drive them away, maybe an exorcist's kit out to include a scientist wielding a microscope.

quote:

---

But, thank you calling it drivel. That confirms, again, my point that evolutionists say they are fussy about being scientists, but then neglect the simple courtesies that are part of scientific inquiry. What I call hypocrisy.

---

And at the same time confirming that you are yourself a hypocrite. Or are you saying that hypocrisy is only when "evolutionists" neglect courtesy?Why don't you simply answer the questions? Why must you always reduce your arguments to insult and threats?

---

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

Just to let you know, I already made this argument. I also used pieces of this against his claims that Occam's razor would exclude natural explanations in favor of unseen demons operating from their dark matter caves.He has since dropped discussion of Occam's razor but never admitted I was right. Unfortunately he continues to discuss his other assertion.I predict he will not allow you argument to deter his continued assertions.

---

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