You wrote: "I consider myself a scientist, not a creationist and not an
evolutionist."
And Kevin wrote: "This from a man who has admitted to me privately that he
is not a Christian, and whose opinion of Christians is little better than
his opinion of evolutionists."
Hence, it seems to me that you are neither a creationist nor a Christian.
That was not meant as an insult. It was simply stating a fact, to someone
who believed you were a creationist. I presume you agree that it is a
fact, since you stop well short of actually saying "I am a creationist and
a Christian" above. (I wonder why you do stop short of stating your actual
beliefs, incidentally. When someone was interrogating Pim van Meurs about
*his* a while ago, you certainly felt that he had no right to keep them
secret.)
>And the truth is that scientific
>results are presented statistically and some of the analytical
>statistics can prove things and, where they can, it is done on the basis
>of probability, 0.95 (P<.05) being the common standard.
It is unfortunate that you missed Kevin's extremely informative post on
this subject. In it, he makes clear that you are misinterpreting both
Yockey's paper and the basic use of probabilities in general. To briefly
recap, the point was that these probabilities are meant to show that
something cannot have happened *by chance*. Hence an argument along these
lines:
1) It can't have happened just by chance.
2) But we know it happened.
3) Therefore, it happened because of some deterministic process, rather
than just by chance.
Evolution is not supposed to happen just by chance. It happens partly by
chance (chance mutations) and partly by natural selection (which is
certainly not chance). Consequently, the best your probability argument
can do is tell evolutionists what they already know: that some non-chance
factor is at work.
> And when the people on this list deny and ridicule the
>importance of
>telling the truth and deny and ridicule the rules of proof statistics,
>they have not changed science. They have only ruled themselves out of
>the realm of science into the realm of anti-science.
I would submit that, in continuing to present your "wager" in the face of
very clear proofs that your fundamental premises were flawed, you committed
precisely those offenses. If you want to justify the bold pronouncements
you make below, you would do well to go back and reply to some of the more
detailed and substantive messages on the subject of Yockey and
probabilities. As it is, your recent messages to the board have almost
entirely consisted of:
1) taunting Pim and others, and,
2) repeating for the umpteenth time your wish that some evolutionist take
you up on your wager.
> There was only one argument: for the truth and for the proof
>rules of
>science on the one side versus the lies with any kind of perversion
>means to win for evolution on the other side. The perverts lost.
> As long as they lose, there is hope for the planet.
Very stirring, but I'm afraid you haven't come anywhere close to justifying
this kind of "oh, woe is me, the barbarians cannot be reasoned with" attitude.
Regards,
Mike Hardie
<hardie@globalserve.net>
http://www.globalserve.net/~hardie/dv/