H-D isn't what it used to be according to Stephen ben Yeshua

Hi, Stephen!Thank you for taking the time to write that fascinating summary of your early scientific career. What struck me was the contrast between your work with birds and your work with prayer studies. You say: In contrast to your work with birds, this appears to have no scientific foundation. It seems to be completely subjective because the only way we know you communicated with Jehovah, and know the contents of that communication, is your say so, and it's probably a pretty safe bet that you published no peer reviewed papers on this.Your bird work had a scientific foundation in the form of objective data that you gathered from nature. Your prayer work is just the opposite, having only subjective personal data. Can you see why your early work was widely cited while your later work is ignored?--Percy

In Message #14, Stephen gives the reader some history regarding his evolution toward Theomorphic Biology:"When it seemed likely that this Jehovah person was really out there, I made an effort to get an interview, and ask Him about evolution. This succeeded, and He said that evolution had many true points to make about the way He created and maintained biological diversity, but was basically wrong. Most selection was artificial, not natural, and most genetic changes were engineered, not random mutations. He said that there was a lot that I couldn't understand yet, but that if I stuck around, He'd enjoy helping me."Thank you, Bro. Stephen. This is very, very interesting stuff. So ..."[Jehovah] said that evolution had many true points to make about the way He created and maintained biological diversity ..."Stephen, please feel free to enumerate and share those "true points" with the rest of us. I'm particularly interested in the points of agreement between "evolutionary way" and the "actual way" Jehovah created creatures. And please fill us in on the obviously "complicated way" that "evolution" maintains biological diversity with comparisons to "Jehovah's way" of accomplishing biological diversity.Stephen, after saying that "evolution" and "Jehovah" agree to some extent, you finish your sentence with " ... evolution had many true points ... but was basically wrong." How so? Please tell us what Jehovah told you with regard to how evolution got it wrong.Stephen, you say that Jehovah told you that "most selection was artificial, not natural ..."So, since most is not all, I'm assuming that some selection was natural. Could you please give us a list, or at least some examples, of natural selection? If you have not asked Jehovah the same question yet, could you do so before answering? I've gotta know.Then you finish the sentence with: "... and most genetic changes were engineered, not random mutations." So, again, some genetic changes where random mutations then. Which ones?Also, who exactly is responsible for the genetic changes that were engineered? Was this a team effort or does one entity get the credit? Were any of the dark forces responsible for any of the engineered genetic changes in specific species? If so, which genetic genetic changes were engineered in which species, and by which evil angels or demons? Again, if the list is too long, just give us a sampling.Stephen, you conclude your paragraph with, "He said that there was a lot that I couldn't understand yet, but that if I stuck around, He'd enjoy helping me."First of all, Stephen, if you could not understand everything Jehovah had to explain, then I know I will not be able to grasp it all. But don't let that keep you from providing the facts, please. Remember there are others reading who surely will be able to grasp way more than I, and maybe even some who will comprehend more of it than Jehovah thought you capable of comprehending back when y'all first discussed the topic.Please don't say you have not yet received the answers. I know how inquisitive you are. He promised if you stuck around, "he'd enjoy helping" you understand exactly what I'm asking you to reveal now.Don't hold back, just give us the information; and let those who can see see, and those who can hear hear, right?Peace.[This message has been edited by Abshalom, 02-02-2004]

Didn't you also find it odd that his timeline was actually moving backward?I thought he moved from being a credible scientist to this H-D science.But the timeline starts at 1972, with him finishing his book. Then he talks about the Jesus Freaks of the 1970's (I guess he could have meant post 72). And ends by talking about the 1960's.So when did the transformation actually occur? Before the book, after the book? I couldn't figure it out.Since you seem to know more about that famous Fretwell ecologist guy than me, is our Fretwell that Fretwell or not?

---

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

What is fascinating is the parallel with salty (sorry holmes I know you were not around for his wit). Salty was also a biologist who did some fairly widely acknowledged work on developmental biology in the early 60's. He then had some kind of conversion, completely stopped publishing scientifically, went on rants bearings similarity to Stephen, got himself fired from his professorship and now writes anti-evolution articles in a completely obscure Italian anti-evolution journal. If you went to salty's website, it was clear he could remember and somewhat understand the concepts he worked on in the past but like Stephen, he could no longer see how he reached his scientific conclusions when presented with a new problem. Instead, like Stephen he argued from supposed authority and based his so called "evidence" on pure anecdote (anyone remember semi-meiosis?) or very similar arguments to Stephens like "design is real because design is self evident". He also loved to insult everyone and claimed that it was an honor to be insulted by evolutionists.It makes you wonder what kind of trauma one goes through that can obliterate ones ability to think logically. Especially after having practiced methodological naturalism for an extended period of time.

The tentative nature of science must be intolerable to anyone who wants total unambiguous certainty in life. This is why creationist reasoning is totally circular, and therefore impervious to falsification. Unlike scientific acceptance, which only comes after research has created a realistic foundation for our 'belief,' faith is necessary to validate its own assumptions.Biblical literalism is the introduction to this mode of thinking, where every word of the Bible is assumed to be true even before the word has been read. Any really egregious error is attributed to translation error or assumed to be a matter of deeper interpretation. The only reason literalists suspect such anomalous exceptions, however, is because they've already assumed the text is the infallible Word of God.From there, we see the fundies move on to making similarly circular pronouncements about evolution, which they assume is untrue without a background in scientific methodology. So the examples of evolution with which they are presented can be dismissed as 'microevolution,' which they define as 'anything that can be presented in support of the evolutionary model.' They have assumed that different organisms cannot descend from common ancestors, and their capacity for denial is seemingly boundless.The 'design inference' is the ultimate unfalsifiable fundie delusion, based on the assumption that a Designer created everything. The dazzling complexity we see in nature, they say, is just what we expect to see from a designed ecosystem. Darwinsterrier can talk till he's blue in his Limey face, but his countless examples of poor design can't falsify a design inference that already assumes that everything is the way it is because a designer wanted it that way.So Salty and Doc Steve are like the guy searching for the keys he lost in the park, who assumes he'll find them under the streetlight because the light is so much better there. They assume the light of science can be used to illuminate their futile search for transcendence, and no failure can falsify that.

---

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

quote:

---

So Salty and Doc Steve are like the guy searching for the keys he lost in the park, who assumes he'll find them under the streetlight because the light is so much better there. They assume the light of science can be used to illuminate their futile search for transcendence, and no failure can falsify that.

---

However, they do not use the "light of science" or anything related to it. The completely reject the scientific method because it will not support their beliefs. They are more like the guy searching for his keys he lost in the park who does not realize he sold his house 20 years ago and gave the keys away with it.

Mammuthus,The only reason you reject Doc Steve's fart-based methodology is because you're one of those paradigm-defending phonies. That and your office has poor ventilation. It's high time you stopped excluding subjective, anecdotal, and nonexistent evidence from the lab. Aside from all those medical and technological advances, what has MN ever done for us?regards,
Esteban "Semi-Flatulent" Hambre

My office does NOT, I repeat, does NOT have poor ventilation...sheesh, eat some spoiled saurkraut at the Hofbrauhaus one time and everyone goes crazy blaming the ventilation...and MN did not do anything for us..those fart demons are posteriorly plausibly confirmed to have dun it.

quote:

---

It makes you wonder what kind of trauma one goes through that can obliterate ones ability to think logically. Especially after having practiced methodological naturalism for an extended period of time.

---

I think I'm starting to get the picture. They were both biologists that were semi successful in the sixties. Hmmmmmm....Maybe they met at some party (a bio conference) and dropped the same bad acid together, and some Guru type led them on an acid trip where he convinced them they were seeing and talking to God.I put this Bayesian probability at .60 (or 60%). I hypothesize that if it did happen, both he and Salty would not be able to remember the experience occuring, and due to the trauma would deny it vociferously. Thus if they do deny it happened the probability goes up.And of course if they cop to it, it still goes up.BTW, Mammuthus I should say (belatedly) that I really like your latest avatar. It's kind of menacing yet alluring all at the same time.[This message has been edited by holmes, 02-03-2004]

---

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

And yet strangely reminiscent of TrueCreation's original avatar. He changed avatars, though, so I can't show it here. Perhaps some remember it?--Percy

I didn't catch that one. Unless by reminiscent you meant because it was threatening yet alluring?

---

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

I guess I'd describe it as scary but alluring. Anyone want to attempt to describe TrueCreation's original avatar?--Percy

My avatar is a columbian mammoth displayed on the fourth floor of the American Museum of Natural History in the hall of mammals. You can sort of make out gomphothere that is standing behind it and the back end of a mastodon that is next to it.Menacing and alluring is probably how my wife would describe me after I eat saurkraut and kartoffelknoedel. But I would first have to pray to Caspar the friendly ghost to posteriorly raise the probability to 0.6..oops farted, just went to 0.61...I start to think that at a black bean and taco eating contest, the probability of anything happening must approach 1.0.

quote:

---

a columbian mammoth displayed on the fourth floor of the American Museum of Natural History

---

Don't you have any cool German mammoths?

quote:

---

I eat saurkraut and kartoffelknoedel.

---

Are you trying to prove demons exist or that YOU are a demon?

---

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

There is apparently a exceptionally large mammoth skeleton on display in the Mammoth Museum in Siegsdorf, but I have not seen it...and a Russian colleague of mine said it was stolen from the museum in St. Petersberg...so maybe not a German mammoth. There is another one in the Zoological Museum in Darmstadt..but I did not read where they dug it up. Considering you can get mammoth parts on eBay for 50 bucks, it could be from anywhere I suspect Stephen thinks I am a demon..or at least possessed by one. This would make the second creationist. A guy called Wordswordsman claimed I was an evil sorcerer...I was hoping that title came with a cool hat and a lucrative stipend..but unfortunately not.