Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
9 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: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Why are evolutionists such hypocrites?
Stephen ben Yeshua
Inactive Member


Message 76 of 111 (83814)
02-06-2004 5:15 AM
Reply to: Message 67 by Silent H
02-05-2004 1:08 AM


What is MN again?
H.
You insist,
Now you'll have to explain why when creating research to adjust this number, we must abandon MN.
I remain unsure that MN exists, since no one seems willing to discuss it in detail, how it might differ, say, from H-D science. Since H-D science has a method, and uses natural data to confirm all hypotheses, natural or spiritual, it would seem that it is MN, explicated. Therefore, far from abandoning MN to adjust your low plausibility, we would have to use it, in the form of H-D.
But my next question is, 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?
Sorry you didn't enjoy the proverb about truth getting you. When I play bridge, if I don't count cards, that is, if I don't get the truth about how many cards of a suit have been played, and how many remain out against me, I can play a perfectly good Ace and the truth, that my opponents still have a trump card, gets my Ace and the trick. In life, I believed a woman who said that she loved me, without looking too deeply into her integrity and character, without getting the truth about her honesty. Then, after we were married, and she didn't need to lie to keep me handy, the truth about her purposes in the relationship, which did not include love for me, "got" me.
And clearly, those who did not get the truth about Hitler's intentions, were gotten by that truth. Ditto with those who are ignoring the truth about bacteria, vitamin C, and demons.
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.
Stephen

This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by Silent H, posted 02-05-2004 1:08 AM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 80 by Silent H, posted 02-06-2004 11:19 AM Stephen ben Yeshua has replied

  
Stephen ben Yeshua
Inactive Member


Message 77 of 111 (83817)
02-06-2004 5:41 AM
Reply to: Message 70 by Mammuthus
02-05-2004 3:37 AM


M.
10 to the minus 73 power, huh. Pretty low. But, at least you aren't lying. That's good news. But, why so low? You might ask a physicist what the probability is that dark matter is inhabited by life forms of some sort.
I'm sorry you have been exposed to the normal fundie baloney. It was designed, I believe, to create for you a mental trap so that you were unable to think of, Hell for example, as a black hole in space that your 21 gram soul might actually fall into. 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.
S.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by Mammuthus, posted 02-05-2004 3:37 AM Mammuthus has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 91 by Mammuthus, posted 02-09-2004 3:07 AM Stephen ben Yeshua has not replied

  
Stephen ben Yeshua
Inactive Member


Message 78 of 111 (83819)
02-06-2004 5:56 AM
Reply to: Message 73 by Peter
02-05-2004 4:13 AM


Re: Stephen Still Has No Evidence
Peter,
I grant you, by the rules of H-D science, that God is not proved by the Bible Codes results, only confirmed. And, of course, any finite data set has an infinite number of explanations for it. But, the plausibility of the ontological reality of the Person, Jehovah, is increased by the prediction, which was apparently born out of prophetic study by ancient Rabbis, that there would be codes in the Bible. Moreover, the idea that the Bible is validated in some way, which is what such codes mean in our use of them in espionage, means that the surface text can be trusted. That text, of course, describes a very particular ontological state of affairs. Codes in a book that claimed that Vishna was the one true God would likewise make that God's reality more plausible. Codes in Moby Dick will make Melville's claim to have been inspired to write it more plausible, as well as the idea that the book is, in some way, a prophetic message or parable from whoever inspired Melville.
Similarly with the prayer studies. Given the basic tenets of theology, those studies only make sense as an encouragement to individuals to explore the value of prayer in their own lives. That will be where the idea is made plausible beyond reasonable doubt.
Stephen

This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by Peter, posted 02-05-2004 4:13 AM Peter has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 81 by Loudmouth, posted 02-06-2004 1:49 PM Stephen ben Yeshua has replied
 Message 96 by Peter, posted 02-10-2004 2:37 AM Stephen ben Yeshua has replied

  
Stephen ben Yeshua
Inactive Member


Message 79 of 111 (83826)
02-06-2004 6:27 AM
Reply to: Message 74 by Percy
02-05-2004 10:35 AM


Re: Stephen Still Has No Evidence
P.
you're just parrotting your original premise over and over and over again.
Because your arguments against it are usually non-sequitors. But, I am willing to concede that it may be impossible for you to understand H-D science, and Bayesian logic. So, I should quit trying to get you to understand.
I can see rational debate is quite a challenge for you.
As Holmes has at the bottom of his posts, rationalizing debate is a challenge to anyone.
You continue your mode of dishonorable debate by asserting positions that have been called into question and then ignoring those questions. Until you address the rebuttals, you have no right to continue making these assertions.
Pure projection of your own guilt here. Go look in a mirror. You seem unaware of what a Bible Code even is, yet you remain ignorant of how they have been demonstrated, how that demonstration destroys the theory of evolution, how the critics have had to break all the rules of decent scientific debate to discredit them. As you do here.
S.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by Percy, posted 02-05-2004 10:35 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 84 by Percy, posted 02-06-2004 2:43 PM Stephen ben Yeshua has not replied

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


Message 80 of 111 (83909)
02-06-2004 11:19 AM
Reply to: Message 76 by Stephen ben Yeshua
02-06-2004 5:15 AM


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)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by Stephen ben Yeshua, posted 02-06-2004 5:15 AM Stephen ben Yeshua has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 86 by Stephen ben Yeshua, posted 02-08-2004 10:29 AM Silent H has replied

  
Loudmouth
Inactive Member


Message 81 of 111 (83947)
02-06-2004 1:49 PM
Reply to: Message 78 by Stephen ben Yeshua
02-06-2004 5:56 AM


Re: Stephen Still Has No Evidence
The plausibility of any specific diety is lowered by the belief in multiple dieties across many different cultures. If there is one true God, then there should be one religion. This prediction is proven false, and therefore the plausibility of Yeshua is lowered. Secondly, if demons can be responsible for false religions, and their power is so great as to completely fool the believer, then there is no test to apply to Jehovah as not being a demon and Vishnu as being the correct diety.
The most plausible hypothesis, in this scenario, is that humans have a deep seated need for a common philisophical cause as part of society. How that philisophy is constructed speaks more of the society's morals and function than it speaks to the actual existance of any specific diety. Humans need to explain phenomena that are beyond their present knowledge or understanding, such as lightning coming from Zeus or Thor, is repeatedly explained by supernatural entities. The second prediction for the existance of Jehovah or any diety is that once phenomena are given supernatural explanations that those phenomena will never have a natural explanation. This prediction also is false, as supernatural explanations (eg, lightning) have been refuted by natural explanations.
My conclusion is that using an H-D approach requires natural phenomena. In trying to show the plausibility of supernatural entities, as shown above, you have to rely upon arbitrary criteria. There is no way to objectively judge these criteria, and hence the plausibility is subjective and not objective.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by Stephen ben Yeshua, posted 02-06-2004 5:56 AM Stephen ben Yeshua has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 82 by Silent H, posted 02-06-2004 2:03 PM Loudmouth has replied
 Message 87 by Stephen ben Yeshua, posted 02-08-2004 12:38 PM Loudmouth has not replied

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


Message 82 of 111 (83948)
02-06-2004 2:03 PM
Reply to: Message 81 by Loudmouth
02-06-2004 1:49 PM


Re: Stephen Still Has No Evidence
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)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by Loudmouth, posted 02-06-2004 1:49 PM Loudmouth has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 83 by Loudmouth, posted 02-06-2004 2:37 PM Silent H has replied
 Message 89 by Stephen ben Yeshua, posted 02-08-2004 10:22 PM Silent H has replied

  
Loudmouth
Inactive Member


Message 83 of 111 (83951)
02-06-2004 2:37 PM
Reply to: Message 82 by Silent H
02-06-2004 2:03 PM


Re: Stephen Still Has No Evidence
Sorry that I missed your post and reiterated your points. I'll look back and check things out.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by Silent H, posted 02-06-2004 2:03 PM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 85 by Silent H, posted 02-07-2004 12:00 AM Loudmouth has not replied

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


Message 84 of 111 (83953)
02-06-2004 2:43 PM
Reply to: Message 79 by Stephen ben Yeshua
02-06-2004 6:27 AM


Re: Stephen Still Has No Evidence
Hi, Stephen!
This is the Free For All forum, a poor venue for constructive dialogue as there are no guidelines or moderation here, plus I'm attempting to centralize H-D discussions in a single thread:The best scientific method (Bayesian form of H-D). I replied to you in Message 216.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by Stephen ben Yeshua, posted 02-06-2004 6:27 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 85 of 111 (84116)
02-07-2004 12:00 AM
Reply to: Message 83 by Loudmouth
02-06-2004 2:37 PM


Re: Stephen Still Has No Evidence
quote:
Sorry that I missed your post
I wasn't upset or anything, just giving you a heads up based on my experience that it's probably not going to work.
I guess a warning not to hold your breath expecting a real response from him.

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 83 by Loudmouth, posted 02-06-2004 2:37 PM Loudmouth has not replied

  
Stephen ben Yeshua
Inactive Member


Message 86 of 111 (84445)
02-08-2004 10:29 AM
Reply to: Message 80 by Silent H
02-06-2004 11:19 AM


Holmes,
my quote:
I remain unsure that MN exists, since no one seems willing to discuss it in detail,
Then you say,
Demons exist to you, but you are uncertain about MN?
I'm just trying to stay on thread, which is pondering the question of why you evolutionists are such hypocrites. In this particular case, you justify your science with something called MN, but it appears that either it doesn't exist or that you don't know what it is. I'm asking you to prove you are not a hypocrite by making some intelligent remarks about how the method works, and what it is, as distinquished from H-d methodology. I was asked to do this, and did, and everyone found lots of web-sites describing H-D methodology, which pretty much validated my description. Now, it's your turn.
Until then, I will continue wondering why evolutionists can't seem to live up to what they profess to believe, taking as the most plausible hypothesis that they don't pray and hence are being blinded by demons to their own behavior.
But, in your defense, you note,
I have also sketched out MN based experiments for some of your hypotheses.
which I apparently missed. Where was this? I'd like to see these!
And at the same time confirming that you are yourself a hypocrite. Or are you saying that hypocrisy is only when "evolutionists" neglect courtesy?
Projection is a common enough psychological problem. I take several steps to protect myself from doing it, including having a friend who is formally recruited to tell me whenever they see me doing it. What do you do to be sure that, in your complaints about me, you are not projecting your own guilt, that you do not want to face?
Anyway, my hypocrisy is off-thread, which is discussing the hypocrisy of evolutionists. That I may be a hypocrite is irrelevant. The question is, are you one, and why? Don't change the subject. It's hypocritical.
Stephen
PS. Have you considered that in your bottom-post quote, you are describing yourself?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by Silent H, posted 02-06-2004 11:19 AM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 88 by Silent H, posted 02-08-2004 3:21 PM Stephen ben Yeshua has replied
 Message 92 by berberry, posted 02-09-2004 3:49 AM Stephen ben Yeshua has not replied

  
Stephen ben Yeshua
Inactive Member


Message 87 of 111 (84465)
02-08-2004 12:38 PM
Reply to: Message 81 by Loudmouth
02-06-2004 1:49 PM


Re: Stephen Still Has No Evidence
Loudmouth,
Good post! Let me go, sentence by sentence.
The plausibility of any specific diety is lowered by the belief in multiple dieties across many different cultures.
Yes, this is where strong inference comes in. The goal is to assume a given diety, make measurable predictions from that assumption, and compare those predictions looking for ones that contradict. Yeshua faced this argument when they said that He healed with satanic power. He noted that a house divided against itself cannot stand, that assuming satanic power led to predictions of more ill-health, not healing and deliverance.
If there is one true God, then there should be one religion.
Not if that one true God has so much love that He grants free will. In this case, our main candidate for a one true God specifically states that we have the freedom to worship other gods.
Secondly, if demons can be responsible for false religions, and their power is so great as to completely fool the believer, then there is no test to apply to Jehovah as not being a demon and Vishnu as being the correct diety.
So it would seem. But Jehovah specifically requests us to hearken to His voice, to hear Him speak, to ask Him for wisdom. And, when we do, He tells us how to test to distinquish between demons and Him. Shows us where He has even written this down.
The most plausible hypothesis, in this scenario, is that humans have a deep seated need for a common philisophical cause as part of society.
Actually, there's another thread here, about atheism being irrational, that posits the mere existence of this hypothesis, and its widespread subjective appeal, as evidence for God. For some, it's hard to imagine where such a "deep seated need" might come from. Note that the language itself posit Someone else doing the "deep seating." Also, as a naturalist and evolutionist, I couldn't see how such a need could evolve. Didn't see much like it in nature, and it appeared counter to fitness. I was stuck with the idea that we evolved some behavioral quirk that was adaptive at low population sizes, clan life-style, but was mal-adaptive at agricultural life-styles.
But, make predictions from it, and see if any contradict the theistic predictions. Then we can make a strong inference test.
The second prediction for the existance of Jehovah or any diety is that once phenomena are given supernatural explanations that those phenomena will never have a natural explanation. This prediction also is false, as supernatural explanations (eg, lightning) have been refuted by natural explanations.
Good point. I agree. This bit of history makes the hypothesis that Jehovah is out there less plausible. His main contention is, talk to Me, but historically those who did heard Him credit Himself with powers that were ultimately connected to natural events. When I ask Him about this, He reminds me of the causation associated with being cut by a sword in a battle. The sharp edge of the sword does the cutting, but it was wielded by a man, my "enemy." But, it turns out my enemy is just another Joe Blow, I might otherwise be having a beer with. His commanding officer really is the cause of my wound. But, ...you get the point. He said, test this hypothesis by doing a proper study on praying for rain.
My conclusion is that using an H-D approach requires natural phenomena. In trying to show the plausibility of supernatural entities, as shown above, you have to rely upon arbitrary criteria. There is no way to objectively judge these criteria, and hence the plausibility is subjective and not objective.
Well, I don't recommend conclusions of any sorts, more of a 'here's where I'm at now' stance. But, what would you think if we actually did a study, with one group praying for Jehovah's intervention, another for ESP effects, another for Vishna's intervention, another for Vishna as inhibited by Jehovah, another for Jehovah as inhibited by Vishna. And got different results?
Stephen

This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by Loudmouth, posted 02-06-2004 1:49 PM Loudmouth has not replied

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


Message 88 of 111 (84499)
02-08-2004 3:21 PM
Reply to: Message 86 by Stephen ben Yeshua
02-08-2004 10:29 AM


quote:
In this particular case, you justify your science with something called MN...
Oh, I'm just fine playing this game. You came here railing against what? What are the current research methods of modern science? Are you saying there are none, and you came in ranting about nothing?
Heheheh, if someone came in asking about science and research I might be willing to answer the question you posed. But your claiming you are a scientist, and then pretending you never learned research methods, just makes me laugh.
Yeah, you keep pretending that I don't know, and that science is operating without research methods. Maybe someone will believe you?
The reason you were asked to deliver an explanation of HD was because YOU claimed you had something better than modern research methods. So what was it?
To turn around and then ask, well what are modern research methods? Like I said, it's a laugh.
quote:
Until then, I will continue wondering why evolutionists can't seem to live up to what they profess to believe, taking as the most plausible hypothesis that they don't pray and hence are being blinded by demons to their own behavior.
And laugh again. What demons? From what religion? You professed to be a scientist, why can't you live up to what you profess to to be?
quote:
which I apparently missed. Where was this? I'd like to see these!
If you cannot be bothered to go back through the threads to find the exact posts, why should I? Your new standard evasion of incredulity is wearing thin.
quote:
Projection is a common enough psychological problem. I take several steps to protect myself from doing it, including having a friend who is formally recruited to tell me whenever they see me doing it.
Psychological what? Yet another dichotomy in your theory? According to you there were no such things as psychological states at all, merely possessions by demons.
quote:
Anyway, my hypocrisy is off-thread, which is discussing the hypocrisy of evolutionists. That I may be a hypocrite is irrelevant.
Sure it is when I point out that you are a hypocrite yourself. What I do is show that your question includes a faulty premise. Why are evolutionists hypocrites? Well it is not just evolutionists that are hypocrites so the question must be broadened.
Why is there hypocrisy maybe? Otherwise the answer to your question is that evolutionists are just like everyone else.
quote:
PS. Have you considered that in your bottom-post quote, you are describing yourself?
Yup. What makes me feel somewhat confident I am not the fool in this scenario though, is I have yet to pretend I don't know something exists which I have already talked about, nor have I reversed positions on statements of fact.

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 86 by Stephen ben Yeshua, posted 02-08-2004 10:29 AM Stephen ben Yeshua has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 90 by Stephen ben Yeshua, posted 02-08-2004 10:48 PM Silent H has replied

  
Stephen ben Yeshua
Inactive Member


Message 89 of 111 (84586)
02-08-2004 10:22 PM
Reply to: Message 82 by Silent H
02-06-2004 2:03 PM


Re: Stephen Still Has No Evidence
Friend Holmes,
You say, to Loudmouth,
He has since dropped discussion of Occam's razor but never admitted I was right. Unfortunately he continues to discuss his other assertion.
We disagree about this, so I see no point in discussing it. The invocation of some mysterious thing called human nature, when there is nothing like it in nature, is less simple, to my simple mind, then supposing that dark matter/energy is inhabited by pathogenic beasts that treat us the way ants treat aphids, or we treat fishing worms. But Occham's razor has no mathematical definition that I know of, so there's no way to resolve our difference of opinion.
Stephen

This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by Silent H, posted 02-06-2004 2:03 PM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 94 by Silent H, posted 02-09-2004 12:35 PM Stephen ben Yeshua has replied

  
Stephen ben Yeshua
Inactive Member


Message 90 of 111 (84594)
02-08-2004 10:48 PM
Reply to: Message 88 by Silent H
02-08-2004 3:21 PM


Holmes,
to your questions!
Oh, I'm just fine playing this game. You came here railing against what? What are the current research methods of modern science? Are you saying there are none, and you came in ranting about nothing?
well, in this thread, I am railing against evolutionists who pretend to be experts on science, accusing creationists of doing a poor job scientifically, while themselves ignorant of the basic work done on scientific method. Moreover, the scientific testing of the theory of evolution, in the sense of making falsifiable, improbable predictions, makes it poor science, as it is usually done. Little or no strong inference.
It was a provocative effort, in hopes to flush out some evolutionist who could present, even teach me something, about recent insights into scientific methodology.
I have stated elsewhere what I understand to be modern scientific methodology, and remain all for what I have heard of. But MN, I can't quite figure out, unless it and H-D methodology are the same.
Honestly, the rest of your post makes no sense to me, attributing to me ideas I have never had, and I hope I never expressed. I have spent most of my adult life studying and teaching scientific methodology. And using what I learned to do very successful science. You keep implying that I don't know anything about methodology, whenever I simply challenge you to show your stuff. Show us what you have learned. Your evasion of that challenge is embarrassing. Sorry I brought it up.
And laugh again. What demons? From what religion? You professed to be a scientist, why can't you live up to what you profess to to be?
905 of the world believes that the world is haunted, and you don't even know what they are talking about? True, different religions have somewhat different models for "demons." Rather than write off all the experience and insight that has produced that belief, I as a scientist will understake to evaluate the idea, using the modern methodology that allows me to do so.
If you cannot be bothered to go back through the threads to find the exact posts, why should I?
Ok, just give me a hint. What hypothesis? What were we going to measure? What predictions?
Psychological what? Yet another dichotomy in your theory? According to you there were no such things as psychological states at all, merely possessions by demons.
Demons, if they exist and influence thoughts and emotions, will operate on the natural matrix of neurological and, possibly, soul-influenced, behavior. I never say anything is merely anything, or try not to.
Cheers,
Stephen

This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by Silent H, posted 02-08-2004 3:21 PM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 93 by Silent H, posted 02-09-2004 12:17 PM Stephen ben Yeshua 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