Oh look, more "science" falls by the wayside..unethical study

[newpolitics]

I don't understand what this has to do with religion vs. science....

What it does is weaken the argument that when scientists speaketh, it is only truth, facts, that passeth their lips.


There are scientists who lie for money and career, some who will construct bizarre scenarios in the name of science, some who toil lifelong in attempts to benefit humanity.

Some, all three, as in a Venn Diagram.

Wow. There are dishonest people in this world who subvert ethics for material gain. This is an age old human phenomenon and has been witnessed in every field, career, occupation, yet for some reason, Scientists are held to a gold standard, and if they fall at all, then it discredits the whole field. This is typical christian conservatism.

Peer review will always root out misinformation. You can't discredit science. It is the only link we have to the natural world. Religion explains nothing empirically.

 

[Gadawg73]

Yes that is the issue I was speaking of. I can point to many times in my academic career where scientists on the right have been just as obnoxious as those on the left. It is the nature of man. Politics and science don't mix either. But once again that is the nature of man.

Throughout history there are people who will loot, kill and lie to get ahead. Back in the old days they were the robber barons or highwaymen of yore, today they are the unethical businessmen, scientists, lawyers and politicians who are quite happy to screw anybody they need to to get ahead.

"I can point to many times in my academic career where scientists on the right have been just as obnoxious as those on the left."
I have no problem with obnoxious...that is a very different scenario....
...this discussion is far more focused:

In a way to remove one's ability to make a living.

I can point to many times....I don't think you can.

Certainly not in as systemic fashion as my posts have evidenced.


But...have a go.

At this time the lefties have a definite edge in control thus are the bad actors. Back when I was getting started it was the other way around. All things go in cycles, even this sort of crapola.

Maybe now since 2 people have stated that they will believe it.
Thank you.

 

[Gadawg73]

I don't understand what this has to do with religion vs. science....

What it does is weaken the argument that when scientists speaketh, it is only truth, facts, that passeth their lips.


There are scientists who lie for money and career, some who will construct bizarre scenarios in the name of science, some who toil lifelong in attempts to benefit humanity.

Some, all three, as in a Venn Diagram.

Wow. There are dishonest people in this world who subvert ethics for material gain. This is an age old human phenomenon and has been witnessed in every field, career, occupation, yet for some reason, Scientists are held to a gold standard, and if they fall at all, then it discredits the whole field. This is typical christian conservatism.

Peer review will always root out misinformation. You can't discredit science. It is the only link we have to the natural world. Religion explains nothing empirically.

Now wait a damn minute.
You didn't know that ditto head right wing family values onward Christian Soldier Republicans are the ONLY ones that have ethics?
Shame on you.

 

[Youwerecreated]

So, do you ever use your own words, or do you just rely on other people to argue for you? Let's begin.



Funny, there actually has been lots of laboratory evidence of speciation and evidence of speciation out in the wild. Google 'Richard Lenski.' He's been doing an experiment with e. coli bacteria for the past two decades. It's still ongoing, and he's had some utterly fascinating discoveries. Some of the non-harmful (to humans) e. coli colonies acquired the ability to process citrate, something with demarcates them from the harmful e. coli.

And oh, the fruit fly thing again, hm? Cute. The experiment was over... 600 generations I believe? Lenski's experiment it took 30,000 generations to produce the trait I spoke of above. Evolution takes time.



I don't think you have enough knowledge of biology to know how funny this is. Seriously. Go try looking at pictures of what domesticated animals and plants looked like before humans started controlling their breeding and suiting it to own purposes. They don't look like what they do now, so his assertion that there hasn't been evolution is just silly.

Also, his examples of what evolution should have happened? Now he's just being retarded.



Ah, the old creationist tactic of quoting from biologists themselves, and trying to appeal to their authority. Someone's new at this game.

They've clipped his quotes right up. We don't know what the survey was about, how it was conducted, or even what the result was. To begin with, all we can get from this paragraph is that specific traits by themselves don't increase or decrease chances of reproduction or survival. But the author of the paragraph tries to make it mean natural selection is false. Which doesn't work when we don't what Kingsolver was even testing for. It's also interesting to note that he probably tested humans (i.e., individuals), and if he did, than the point is moot. Civilization tends to have a negating effect on natural selection.

So, anyone got a link to the research survey? Citation pleeeeease?



So how is Thomas Ray not honest? How do they fall apart if they are honest? What constitutes an honest computer simulation? This excerpt you've quoted makes a lot of unbacked and uncited statements.

1. "So, do you ever use your own words, or do you just rely on other people to argue for you?"

It's my argument, but Berlinski does such a nice job of tying you in knots, I think I'll keep using his words.

Lolololol yeah okay buddy, we all know you're a human cut, copy and paste machine.

2. "the old creationist tactic of quoting from biologists themselves,..."
Pretty smart, huh?
Who better?

Thanks for proving my point entirely. Clipping quotes and then never using them properly. I did have more to say, but you don't like debating. You like preaching.

3. Now, as I end my refrain, thrust home (btw, that one from Edmond Rostand) :
May you walk behind the elephant in the procession of life!

So are you going to actually respond to any of my points? Or are you going to be a coward?

Debate me.

Why do so many honest scientists make a comment and it gets out to the creationist then all of a sudden we get a recant of the comment and puppets like yourself get out and spew that is not what was meant. Perfect example Gould and Eldredge.

 

[Youwerecreated]

1. I knew you'd be back, because is galls you how deftly Berlinski proves that science uses belief and faith just as theologians do.

As do you.

Irrelevant to the discussion.



None. No evidence. There's really no reason to take Dawkins seriously on that subject, that's his own speculating opinion. He's not a physicist by trade, he's a biologist. Plus, you even quoted him as saying it's a hypothesis.

Get it through your head, scientists are not fucking religious prophets, any freethinking fan of science will not take everything they say as set in stone.

3. I notice that your language has declined, as it does when one is losing the argument. Your post is more smoke and mirrors than a fire in a brothel…

Stop making these retarded excuses and debate me. If I'm so wrong, come along and tell me why. It shouldn't be too difficult for you, unless you ironically lack faith in your own premise.

Gee, looks like PC is a coward who won't debate me. What a surprise, she doesn't know what she's talking about. But she'll sure demand you take her ignorant opinions seriously.

Typical.

You don't scare anyone, quit slapping yourself on the back for nothing.

 

[Youwerecreated]

What it does is weaken the argument that when scientists speaketh, it is only truth, facts, that passeth their lips.


There are scientists who lie for money and career, some who will construct bizarre scenarios in the name of science, some who toil lifelong in attempts to benefit humanity.

Some, all three, as in a Venn Diagram.

Wow. There are dishonest people in this world who subvert ethics for material gain. This is an age old human phenomenon and has been witnessed in every field, career, occupation, yet for some reason, Scientists are held to a gold standard, and if they fall at all, then it discredits the whole field. This is typical christian conservatism.

Peer review will always root out misinformation. You can't discredit science. It is the only link we have to the natural world. Religion explains nothing empirically.

Now wait a damn minute.
You didn't know that ditto head right wing family values onward Christian Soldier Republicans are the ONLY ones that have ethics?
Shame on you.

If science is a political argument,that tells you all you need to know about the kind of science being taught these days.

 

[LOki]

1. "So, do you ever use your own words, or do you just rely on other people to argue for you?"

It's my argument, but Berlinski does such a nice job of tying you in knots, I think I'll keep using his words.

Lolololol yeah okay buddy, we all know you're a human cut, copy and paste machine.



Thanks for proving my point entirely. Clipping quotes and then never using them properly. I did have more to say, but you don't like debating. You like preaching.

3. Now, as I end my refrain, thrust home (btw, that one from Edmond Rostand) :
May you walk behind the elephant in the procession of life!

So are you going to actually respond to any of my points? Or are you going to be a coward?

Debate me.

Why do so many honest scientists make a comment and it gets out to the creationist then all of a sudden we get a recant of the comment and puppets like yourself get out and spew that is not what was meant. Perfect example Gould and Eldredge.

Well aren't you just a persistently lying retard. Christian Creationists quote scientists out of context to assert they hold conclusions that they don't, and then honest people expose your dishonesty by pointing out to you what these scientists actually concluded.

 

[koshergrl]

Loki's post illustrates the phrase "talking in circles".

 

[LOki]

Loki's post illustrates the phrase "talking in circles".

koshergrl illustrates the phrase "braying like an ass."

 

[PoliticalChic]

So, do you ever use your own words, or do you just rely on other people to argue for you? Let's begin.



Funny, there actually has been lots of laboratory evidence of speciation and evidence of speciation out in the wild. Google 'Richard Lenski.' He's been doing an experiment with e. coli bacteria for the past two decades. It's still ongoing, and he's had some utterly fascinating discoveries. Some of the non-harmful (to humans) e. coli colonies acquired the ability to process citrate, something with demarcates them from the harmful e. coli.

And oh, the fruit fly thing again, hm? Cute. The experiment was over... 600 generations I believe? Lenski's experiment it took 30,000 generations to produce the trait I spoke of above. Evolution takes time.



I don't think you have enough knowledge of biology to know how funny this is. Seriously. Go try looking at pictures of what domesticated animals and plants looked like before humans started controlling their breeding and suiting it to own purposes. They don't look like what they do now, so his assertion that there hasn't been evolution is just silly.

Also, his examples of what evolution should have happened? Now he's just being retarded.



Ah, the old creationist tactic of quoting from biologists themselves, and trying to appeal to their authority. Someone's new at this game.

They've clipped his quotes right up. We don't know what the survey was about, how it was conducted, or even what the result was. To begin with, all we can get from this paragraph is that specific traits by themselves don't increase or decrease chances of reproduction or survival. But the author of the paragraph tries to make it mean natural selection is false. Which doesn't work when we don't what Kingsolver was even testing for. It's also interesting to note that he probably tested humans (i.e., individuals), and if he did, than the point is moot. Civilization tends to have a negating effect on natural selection.

So, anyone got a link to the research survey? Citation pleeeeease?



So how is Thomas Ray not honest? How do they fall apart if they are honest? What constitutes an honest computer simulation? This excerpt you've quoted makes a lot of unbacked and uncited statements.

1. "So, do you ever use your own words, or do you just rely on other people to argue for you?"

It's my argument, but Berlinski does such a nice job of tying you in knots, I think I'll keep using his words.

Lolololol yeah okay buddy, we all know you're a human cut, copy and paste machine.

2. "the old creationist tactic of quoting from biologists themselves,..."
Pretty smart, huh?
Who better?

Thanks for proving my point entirely. Clipping quotes and then never using them properly. I did have more to say, but you don't like debating. You like preaching.

3. Now, as I end my refrain, thrust home (btw, that one from Edmond Rostand) :
May you walk behind the elephant in the procession of life!

So are you going to actually respond to any of my points? Or are you going to be a coward?

Debate me.

"Thanks for proving my point entirely. Clipping quotes and then never using them properly."

Of course they were used correctly...that's exactly what sticks in your craw.


I've found, and this thread indicates, that those fearful that their worldview is more a house built on a foundation of sand needing just enough of a shaking....and it is gone.

You are a case in point.
Rather than admitting that there numerous cases of foundation-less theories, and therefore no more 'scientific' than many of the ideas found in theology...
...you keep mumbling 'debate me, debate me.'

What new ideas do you bring to the table?
None.
You can't prove that there are multiple universes, or how or why the universe began, or bridge the gaps between the standard model and string theory, or why there is not proof that evolution is based on a series of changes leading to new species- but on new species that arise filled with all the properties that differentiate them from other forms....

And, the most momentous of events, the ability of the human mind, and body, which is not found elsewhere in the biosphere.....
...the degree of magnitude explained in only one place:

Genesis 1:28 "God blessed them and said to them, "Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground."


Debate you?
I've destroyed you.

 

[PoliticalChic]

At this time the lefties have a definite edge in control thus are the bad actors. Back when I was getting started it was the other way around. All things go in cycles, even this sort of crapola.

Destroying careers?
Doesn't seem like you can put your finger on such evidence.

Darlin (and I'm not trying to be flippant) I am old, I have forgotten or wiped my mind clean of all the BS that went on back then. I can go way back to Alfred Wegeners day and he was reviled and driven out of the field of geology for one and the other scientists of the time tried to ruin him. They were very conservative, but fortunately he was the great polymath of the era so was able to weather the storm but his career was affected.

Suffice to say that in this day and time the leftists are ruling the roost and there is a major fight going on within the scientific community to wrest control away from them. So far we are making some good progress but the majority of us who are waging the battle are old and decrepit!

"I am old."

Not that old....the liberals, and their use of the every sort of attack to silence their opponents, go back some three generations....
....In addition to the examples that I have provided, this comes to mind, the JournoList Scandal:
Not satisfied to slant and censor their own stories and venues, the army of liberal journalists want the government to shut down alternative views: “The very existence of Fox News, meanwhile, sends Journolisters into paroxysms of rage. When Howell Raines charged that the network had a conservative bias, the members of Journolist discussed whether the federal government should shut the channel down.

“I am genuinely scared” of Fox, wrote Guardian columnist Daniel Davies, because it “shows you that a genuinely shameless and unethical media organisation *cannot* be controlled by any form of peer pressure or self-regulation, and nor can it be successfully cold-shouldered or ostracised. In order to have even a semblance of control, you need a tough legal framework.” Davies, a Brit, frequently argued the United States needed stricter libel laws.

“I agree,” said Michael Scherer of Time Magazine. Roger “Ailes understands that his job is to build a tribal identity, not a news organization. You can’t hurt Fox by saying it gets it wrong, if Ailes just uses the criticism to deepen the tribal identity.”

Jonathan Zasloff, a law professor at UCLA, suggested that the federal government simply yank Fox off the air. “I hate to open this can of worms,” he wrote, “but is there any reason why the FCC couldn’t simply pull their broadcasting permit once it expires?” Liberal journalists suggest government censor Fox News | The Daily Caller

No, my friend, there is no equivalence.

I can provide the same kind of scenario of the halls of academia.


I believe that you are simply less confrontational than I am....thus the 'same for both' attitude.
And we will each continue to be so.
Be well.

 

[newpolitics]

Destroying careers?
Doesn't seem like you can put your finger on such evidence.

Darlin (and I'm not trying to be flippant) I am old, I have forgotten or wiped my mind clean of all the BS that went on back then. I can go way back to Alfred Wegeners day and he was reviled and driven out of the field of geology for one and the other scientists of the time tried to ruin him. They were very conservative, but fortunately he was the great polymath of the era so was able to weather the storm but his career was affected.

Suffice to say that in this day and time the leftists are ruling the roost and there is a major fight going on within the scientific community to wrest control away from them. So far we are making some good progress but the majority of us who are waging the battle are old and decrepit!

"I am old."

Not that old....the liberals, and their use of the every sort of attack to silence their opponents, go back some three generations....
....In addition to the examples that I have provided, this comes to mind, the JournoList Scandal:
Not satisfied to slant and censor their own stories and venues, the army of liberal journalists want the government to shut down alternative views: “The very existence of Fox News, meanwhile, sends Journolisters into paroxysms of rage. When Howell Raines charged that the network had a conservative bias, the members of Journolist discussed whether the federal government should shut the channel down.

“I am genuinely scared” of Fox, wrote Guardian columnist Daniel Davies, because it “shows you that a genuinely shameless and unethical media organisation *cannot* be controlled by any form of peer pressure or self-regulation, and nor can it be successfully cold-shouldered or ostracised. In order to have even a semblance of control, you need a tough legal framework.” Davies, a Brit, frequently argued the United States needed stricter libel laws.

“I agree,” said Michael Scherer of Time Magazine. Roger “Ailes understands that his job is to build a tribal identity, not a news organization. You can’t hurt Fox by saying it gets it wrong, if Ailes just uses the criticism to deepen the tribal identity.”

Jonathan Zasloff, a law professor at UCLA, suggested that the federal government simply yank Fox off the air. “I hate to open this can of worms,” he wrote, “but is there any reason why the FCC couldn’t simply pull their broadcasting permit once it expires?” Liberal journalists suggest government censor Fox News | The Daily Caller

No, my friend, there is no equivalence.

I can provide the same kind of scenario of the halls of academia.


I believe that you are simply less confrontational than I am....thus the 'same for both' attitude.
And we will each continue to be so.
Be well.

Wow. censoring fox news? that's a great idea. I never thought of it.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Darlin (and I'm not trying to be flippant) I am old, I have forgotten or wiped my mind clean of all the BS that went on back then. I can go way back to Alfred Wegeners day and he was reviled and driven out of the field of geology for one and the other scientists of the time tried to ruin him. They were very conservative, but fortunately he was the great polymath of the era so was able to weather the storm but his career was affected.

Suffice to say that in this day and time the leftists are ruling the roost and there is a major fight going on within the scientific community to wrest control away from them. So far we are making some good progress but the majority of us who are waging the battle are old and decrepit!

"I am old."

Not that old....the liberals, and their use of the every sort of attack to silence their opponents, go back some three generations....
....In addition to the examples that I have provided, this comes to mind, the JournoList Scandal:
Not satisfied to slant and censor their own stories and venues, the army of liberal journalists want the government to shut down alternative views: “The very existence of Fox News, meanwhile, sends Journolisters into paroxysms of rage. When Howell Raines charged that the network had a conservative bias, the members of Journolist discussed whether the federal government should shut the channel down.

“I am genuinely scared” of Fox, wrote Guardian columnist Daniel Davies, because it “shows you that a genuinely shameless and unethical media organisation *cannot* be controlled by any form of peer pressure or self-regulation, and nor can it be successfully cold-shouldered or ostracised. In order to have even a semblance of control, you need a tough legal framework.” Davies, a Brit, frequently argued the United States needed stricter libel laws.

“I agree,” said Michael Scherer of Time Magazine. Roger “Ailes understands that his job is to build a tribal identity, not a news organization. You can’t hurt Fox by saying it gets it wrong, if Ailes just uses the criticism to deepen the tribal identity.”

Jonathan Zasloff, a law professor at UCLA, suggested that the federal government simply yank Fox off the air. “I hate to open this can of worms,” he wrote, “but is there any reason why the FCC couldn’t simply pull their broadcasting permit once it expires?” Liberal journalists suggest government censor Fox News | The Daily Caller

No, my friend, there is no equivalence.

I can provide the same kind of scenario of the halls of academia.


I believe that you are simply less confrontational than I am....thus the 'same for both' attitude.
And we will each continue to be so.
Be well.

Wow. censoring fox news? that's a great idea. I never thought of it.

You should really come and visit the United States...you might get a different perspective.

 

[newpolitics]

"I am old."

Not that old....the liberals, and their use of the every sort of attack to silence their opponents, go back some three generations....
....In addition to the examples that I have provided, this comes to mind, the JournoList Scandal:
Not satisfied to slant and censor their own stories and venues, the army of liberal journalists want the government to shut down alternative views: “The very existence of Fox News, meanwhile, sends Journolisters into paroxysms of rage. When Howell Raines charged that the network had a conservative bias, the members of Journolist discussed whether the federal government should shut the channel down.

“I am genuinely scared” of Fox, wrote Guardian columnist Daniel Davies, because it “shows you that a genuinely shameless and unethical media organisation *cannot* be controlled by any form of peer pressure or self-regulation, and nor can it be successfully cold-shouldered or ostracised. In order to have even a semblance of control, you need a tough legal framework.” Davies, a Brit, frequently argued the United States needed stricter libel laws.

“I agree,” said Michael Scherer of Time Magazine. Roger “Ailes understands that his job is to build a tribal identity, not a news organization. You can’t hurt Fox by saying it gets it wrong, if Ailes just uses the criticism to deepen the tribal identity.”

Jonathan Zasloff, a law professor at UCLA, suggested that the federal government simply yank Fox off the air. “I hate to open this can of worms,” he wrote, “but is there any reason why the FCC couldn’t simply pull their broadcasting permit once it expires?” Liberal journalists suggest government censor Fox News | The Daily Caller

No, my friend, there is no equivalence.

I can provide the same kind of scenario of the halls of academia.


I believe that you are simply less confrontational than I am....thus the 'same for both' attitude.
And we will each continue to be so.
Be well.

Wow. censoring fox news? that's a great idea. I never thought of it.

You should really come and visit the United States...you might get a different perspective.

I was born and raised in America (New York). What do you mean by different perspective? Or rather, what perspective do presume I am missing?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Wow. censoring fox news? that's a great idea. I never thought of it.

You should really come and visit the United States...you might get a different perspective.

I was born and raised in America (New York). What do you mean by different perspective? Or rather, what perspective do presume I am missing?

Well, then....judging from your post you, no doubt, attended a government school. Thinking persons don't suggest censorship of opposing viewpoints.

 

[newpolitics]

You should really come and visit the United States...you might get a different perspective.

I was born and raised in America (New York). What do you mean by different perspective? Or rather, what perspective do presume I am missing?

Well, then....judging from your post you, no doubt, attended a government school. Thinking persons don't suggest censorship of opposing viewpoints.

You really think the fact that I went to public school actually is the cause for my saying this about fox? That's quite a leap, considering how many factors go into something a person might choose to type on an internet forum.

Let me clear this up: I wasn't being serious. I don't actually think that's a good idea to censor fox, although I secretly wish it were possibility, because I think they are evil.

 

[Gadawg73]

You should really come and visit the United States...you might get a different perspective.

I was born and raised in America (New York). What do you mean by different perspective? Or rather, what perspective do presume I am missing?

Well, then....judging from your post you, no doubt, attended a government school. Thinking persons don't suggest censorship of opposing viewpoints.

"judging from your post you, no doubt, attended a government school"
I see you also listen to Neal Boortz.
An original thought you lack once again.
Ronald Reagan and Dwight Eisenhower attended "government" schools as well as many other great leaders in this country.

 

[PoliticalChic]

I was born and raised in America (New York). What do you mean by different perspective? Or rather, what perspective do presume I am missing?

Well, then....judging from your post you, no doubt, attended a government school. Thinking persons don't suggest censorship of opposing viewpoints.

You really think the fact that I went to public school actually is the cause for my saying this about fox? That's quite a leap, considering how many factors go into something a person might choose to type on an internet forum.

Let me clear this up: I wasn't being serious. I don't actually think that's a good idea to censor fox, although I secretly wish it were possibility, because I think they are evil.

Apology accepted.

Welcome home.

 

[PoliticalChic]

I was born and raised in America (New York). What do you mean by different perspective? Or rather, what perspective do presume I am missing?

Well, then....judging from your post you, no doubt, attended a government school. Thinking persons don't suggest censorship of opposing viewpoints.

"judging from your post you, no doubt, attended a government school"
I see you also listen to Neal Boortz.
An original thought you lack once again.
Ronald Reagan and Dwight Eisenhower attended "government" schools as well as many other great leaders in this country.

I see the Low-T precinct is reporting in....and as welcome as emphysema at a glass-blowers convention.

"I see you also listen to Neal Boortz."
Mr. Boortz has no outlet in New York City.

Astounding how consistent an ignorant dolt like you can be.

 

[Gadawg73]

Well, then....judging from your post you, no doubt, attended a government school. Thinking persons don't suggest censorship of opposing viewpoints.

"judging from your post you, no doubt, attended a government school"
I see you also listen to Neal Boortz.
An original thought you lack once again.
Ronald Reagan and Dwight Eisenhower attended "government" schools as well as many other great leaders in this country.

I see the Low-T precinct is reporting in....and as welcome as emphysema at a glass-blowers convention.

"I see you also listen to Neal Boortz."
Mr. Boortz has no outlet in New York City.

Astounding how consistent an ignorant dolt like you can be.

Ok, then you read his book.
PC, you are always welcome here. We never sweat the small stuff like you do.
Damn, I look back and I wish I would have had Low T during parts of my life!
I like the emphysema joke. Made me laugh like all of your posts.