Excuse me Riverwolf, but you are not my "audience" here.
Yes we are.
We're here, we're reading your posts, therefore we're your audience.
On the contrary, you, and the other evolutionists here, are the object of study.
Hardly a very good one since the sample size is pathetically small, and at least one of your test subjects(specifically myself) has Asperger's Syndrome, which kind of skews the results.
In addition, I'm only here because I'm bored and passing the time. I don't spend all my brain power trying to think of every single element of your posts in this thread, or those of others, because I'm just here casually. I think you're taking this way more seriously than I am.
Then again, you haven't given me much reason to take this whole thing seriously.
Put simply, you are data.
Personally, I've always felt more like Troy, but Data is a pretty cool character, anyway...
Oh, THAT kind of data. No freaking duh.
Everything is data.
I am here to document the evolutionists' tactics on Haldane's Dilemma.
We're just average joes, dude.
I am here to record it all, for the benefit of passersby and curious onlookers, and perhaps even Google scholars, who may visit this thread from time-to-time. I want them to see, as clearly as possible, how you and other evolutionists conducted yourselves.
Ah, for the sake of the lurkers.
Fair enough.
Just remember that your conduct is also on display.
It's all on this thread. For example:
- the personal attacks on your opponent's character;
If you felt like your person was attacked, why didn't you report those posts?
To be fair, being an object of study when no consent to be one has been given isn't entirely polite, either. In fact, I'd say it's beyond rude.
- the circular reasoning (of the form "Evolution is a 'fact', therefore Haldane's Dilemma is 'solved'.";
Not solved; nonexistent.
Learn the difference.
And if you thought it was circular reasoning, you should have explained how. Certainly, I don't think it's circular reasoning, though you
might be able to call non sequitor.
Circular reasoning is more like "The Bible is God's word, because the Bible says so".
- the blunt attempt to arbitrarily brush aside the scandal (for example, with the words, "SO FREAKING WHAT??");
That wasn't a brush aside, that was asking for clarification. I don't understand why you regard this whole thing as some kind of scandal. Nobody's losing money, and no sex tape is involved, so I fail to see why you choose to use that word, except as some kind of buzz term to get people riled up.
Are you calling the entire theory of evolution a scandal? Or just your perception of this particular issue in a vacuum? Considering the fact that your username clearly indicates that you are a Creationist of some kind, and your insistence on using the word "evolutionist", a term only used by people who deny evolution, tells me that you probably don't believe in theistic evolution.
Therefore, contextual clarification is due.
- And most importantly, the absence of even one evolutionist objection to these practices, even after I explicitly invited them to do so.
Altogether, it's a stunning example of what science ought
not be.
Did we ever claim to be scientists, or conducting scientific study?
This isn't a study forum; it's a debate forum. That means, you present an argument, and you need to defend it. If questions are asked, you need to clarify.
It is NOT a place to conduct a non-consensual social experiment.
Besides, if your goal is to somehow discredit people who accept evolution by pointing to how we act rather than the belief itself, is that not, itself, an ad hominim? Certainly only a few people on some random forum does not a good sample size make.
that promotes PSEUDOSCIENCE