Examples of Dishonesty

I looked this up because you were blatantly wrong in answering Redwolf about Sir Keith before, as far as I can tell.Page not found | The Indian ExpressThey might not say it in a journal, but scientists certainly do say "ridiculous" things like that, especially evolutionary scientists are far more liberal in wordusage and theoretical constructs then people in other sciences as far as I can tell. Do you really believe the reporter made up this saying all on his own, without any help from Stringer?Apart from that I don't understand your problem with the phrase. It seems that you don't think it is appropiate to talk in terms of; the dna being half as different from modern humans as the dna from chimpanzees is, how come?Evolutionists get some finding they don't like, neanderthals are apparently not the ancestors of human beings which many said they were, then they begin nitpicking at not giving a full reference to a quote which says what they don't like to hear, a quote which is basically true, and try to attack the character of the person who pointed out what they didn't like to hear.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

If the phrase is wrongly understood, then the wrong understanding would tend to support evolution. I can read it like saying modern humans evolved from chimps, and halfway through this evolution were neanderthals. So you could make some case for redwolf dishonestly representing some results if he were an evolutionist, but he's not. What other fault are you possibly alluding to, the substantially less then half? What is the correct number then?As far I can tell, you have no case, as also with Sir Keith I'm left totally guessing at what your problem with the quote is.Sylas:
"The behaviour is not a result of accepting evolutionary explanations; and that is not Keith's position."A double negative, not very clear. According the quotes including your own, it is Sir Keith's position that the behaviour of the nazi's is a result of conforming policy to evolutionary theory. It's true that it's not Sir Keith's position that it's not a result of conforming policy to evolutionary theory.I see that you, or someone else debated this on talk.origins. I've been posting on talk.origins for a long time before, I know the kind of tactics and groupdynamics that go on there. I think my reading of events is entirely reasonable, considering you don't actually seem to have any valid argumentation, or at the very least your argumentation is not expressed well, yet you go on *pretending* that this is all just clearcut dishonesty.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

But it can't reasonably be misunderstood because the misunderstanding would lead people to conclude that redwolf is an evolutionist, which is obviously not the case. It would be understood, just as I understood it, that the DNA is half as different.redwolf:
"Keith...an atheistic evolutionist and an anti-Nazi"Same here, you can't conclude that redwolf makes it out as though Keith proposes evolutionary theory as giving a scientific basis for ethical or moral behaviour, because he says in the opening that Keith is an anti-nazi.You are clearly wrong, I am not incredibly stupid, redwolf was not dishonest.This is on topic in so far as claims of dishonesty are all to readily bandied about by people who then *invite everyone* to repeat that false claim of dishonesty. This is simply a tactic, sooner or later you're going to catch that person in an actual dishonesty, in which case *character assassination* can begin in full swing. There's obviously no possible response like: "yes sorry I was being dishonest", it is like it is unforgivable.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

It is not wrong, there is actually no error whatsoever.
It is perhaps a little vague, but since it is explicitely denied in the newspaper as well as by redwolf that neanderthals are the ancestors of modern humans, it can't reasonably be misunderstood. I'm sure that scientists measuring dna differences will say things like "oh, the neanderthals are about halfway between chimps and modern human beings" and if they had some other group in it they might say meaning they are half as different. All these page after page of posts is about absolutely nothing whatsoever. It's about a bit loose wordusage in a science where they employ words such vauge terms as goodness, and selfishness, and talk about struggle for existence. A useless exercise in nitpicking.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

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

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

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

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

You are welcome to addres Sylas false accusations of dishonesty, if you care about honesty. I see this as an attempt to rescue Sylas from his false accusations to Redwolf, by making other accusations to Redwolf.Anyway the post you refer to shows nothing, it is just a flame. At the most we can say that Redwolf is lazy in not giving direct references to his refutations. Of course if they don't exist then you have some dishonesty there, but as it stands I don't see anything worth calling dishonest.(edited to respond to RAZD edited post)- Redwolf shows a picture of an old drawing that looks like a dinosaur.- RAZD denies it is a dinosaur.- Redwolf again says it is a dinosaur in another thread.- RAZD calls redwolf dishonest for saying it is a dinosaur and not mentioning the refutation of this position.- Redwolf calls RAZD dishonest, i guess for not giving a link to the picture of the drawing that looks like a dinosaur.Once again the accusation is found to be based on nothing. There was no refutation, there was some reasonably argued denial that the picture that looks like a dinosaur was actually not a drawing of a dinosaur but something else. Then there was another picture of a drawing which looks like ... nothing in my opinion. Obviously a highly speculative discussion where no side could possibly claim with absolute certainty that it is or isn't a drawing of a dinosaur.Redwolf is identified as a bad guy probably because of things like referring to Chuck Darwin, and because he is a bad guy, anything goes. I think that is more likely the sort of thing that is happening.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu[This message has been edited Syamsu, 05-02-2004]