Ben Carson refers to himself as a "scientist".

[PK1]

Ben Carson is a scientist. To say otherwise is sheer stupidity.

Ben Carson is also proof that scientists are not perfect creatures, and some of them are dumb as a bag of bricks. Remember that next time you want to spew some global warming bullshit.

---
Ben Carson was a "scientist" when, and only when, he was practicing neurosurgery AND not making conclusions beyond his medical expertise.
He knows little about evolutionary biology, and to form a belief on that subject without surveying the evidence is UNSCIENTIFIC.

In climatology, only about 3% of scientists have credibility in disputing ACC claims believed by the overwhelming majority of climate science specialists.
.

 

[flacaltenn]

I was just watching a press conference with Ben Carson. He said he's a scientist and "investigates" things.

He thinks pyramids are grain silos. He feels evolution is a Satanic conspiracy and climate change a scam.

If that's the result of his "research", can he really call himself a "scientist"?

The theory of evolution is the result of the work of scientists.

Ben Carson considers those scientists satanic, just because he disagrees with them. By that measure, that justifies considering Carson a tool of the Devil to anyone who disagrees with his science.

No -- Ben Carson understands the 200 years of science that has been done SINCE Darwin died. His beef was with the leap to conclusions that Darwin made without the availability of scientific evidence. If you showed Darwin a jar of fruit flies with 20 new species in it that was "created" last Wednesday -- his head would spin like BeetleJuice.

Evolution nows allows the possibility that missing links are irrelevant. That sudden and ABRUPT changes in DNA could be created by things legally referred to as "acts of God" -- like Cosmic Ray showers and other stressors.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Al Gore referred to himself as a scientist and invented the theory of "man made global warming" just to make a buck from selling non existing energy stock and the idiotic left eats it like paplum. Wouldn't any freaking sane person in the whole freaking world consider that a pediatric neuro brain surgeon can safely be referred to as a real scientist?

Failed attempt to deflect – the thread is about Carson.

Most conservatives are truly ridiculous and pathetic.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

In a related story, Amazon can't keep the Robert Byrd autographed KKK Sheet in stock

Who the **** cares?

Ridiculous, pathetic conservatives understandably embarrassed by their candidates.

 

[BULLDOG]

I was just watching a press conference with Ben Carson. He said he's a scientist and "investigates" things.

He thinks pyramids are grain silos. He feels evolution is a Satanic conspiracy and climate change a scam.

If that's the result of his "research", can he really call himself a "scientist"?

The theory of evolution is the result of the work of scientists.

Ben Carson considers those scientists satanic, just because he disagrees with them. By that measure, that justifies considering Carson a tool of the Devil to anyone who disagrees with his science.

No -- Ben Carson understands the 200 years of science that has been done SINCE Darwin died. His beef was with the leap to conclusions that Darwin made without the availability of scientific evidence. If you showed a jar of fruit flies with 20 new species in it that was "created" last Wednesday -- his head would spin like BeetleJuice.

Evolution nows allows the possibility that missing links are irrelevant. That sudden and ABRUPT changes in DNA could be created by things legally referred to as "acts of God" -- like Cosmic Ray showers and other stressors.

So you are backing off of the "God created everything as it is today" claim that is the core of creationism.

 

[flacaltenn]

Ben Carson is a scientist. To say otherwise is sheer stupidity.

Ben Carson is also proof that scientists are not perfect creatures, and some of them are dumb as a bag of bricks. Remember that next time you want to spew some global warming bullshit.

---
Ben Carson was a "scientist" when, and only when, he was practicing neurosurgery AND not making conclusions beyond his medical expertise.
He knows little about evolutionary biology, and to form a belief on that subject without surveying the evidence is UNSCIENTIFIC.

In climatology, only about 3% of scientists have credibility in disputing ACC claims believed by the overwhelming majority of climate science specialists.
.

Well you're wrong about any strict compartmentalization of science. MOST of it is fungible and movable between disciplines and happens all the time.

But SPECIFICALLY -- if what you said about only 3% having credibility to analyze or comment on climate change WERE to be true -- Then all those lists of "Academies of Science" PR endorsements of Global Warming would be worthless. Wouldn't they? Because why should agricultural or behavioral scientists be included in such endorsements? If the tools were not portable and the curiousity and techniques universal -- you wouldn't have Scientific American, Science Magazine or the Ted Talks..

 

[flacaltenn]

I was just watching a press conference with Ben Carson. He said he's a scientist and "investigates" things.

He thinks pyramids are grain silos. He feels evolution is a Satanic conspiracy and climate change a scam.

If that's the result of his "research", can he really call himself a "scientist"?

The theory of evolution is the result of the work of scientists.

Ben Carson considers those scientists satanic, just because he disagrees with them. By that measure, that justifies considering Carson a tool of the Devil to anyone who disagrees with his science.

No -- Ben Carson understands the 200 years of science that has been done SINCE Darwin died. His beef was with the leap to conclusions that Darwin made without the availability of scientific evidence. If you showed a jar of fruit flies with 20 new species in it that was "created" last Wednesday -- his head would spin like BeetleJuice.

Evolution nows allows the possibility that missing links are irrelevant. That sudden and ABRUPT changes in DNA could be created by things legally referred to as "acts of God" -- like Cosmic Ray showers and other stressors.

So you are backing off of the "God created everything as it is today" claim that is the core of creationism.

Let's say I don't see faith as a bad thing. EVEN AS a scientist. It makes you humble and less likely to bully others with your authority.. Nobody likes "know - it - alls...

 

[BULLDOG]

Ben Carson is a scientist. To say otherwise is sheer stupidity.

Ben Carson is also proof that scientists are not perfect creatures, and some of them are dumb as a bag of bricks. Remember that next time you want to spew some global warming bullshit.

---
Ben Carson was a "scientist" when, and only when, he was practicing neurosurgery AND not making conclusions beyond his medical expertise.
He knows little about evolutionary biology, and to form a belief on that subject without surveying the evidence is UNSCIENTIFIC.

In climatology, only about 3% of scientists have credibility in disputing ACC claims believed by the overwhelming majority of climate science specialists.
.

Well you're wrong about any strict compartmentalization of science. MOST of it is fungible and movable between disciplines and happens all the time.

But SPECIFICALLY -- if what you said about only 3% having credibility to analyze or comment on climate change WERE to be true -- Then all those lists of "Academies of Science" PR endorsements of Global Warming would be worthless. Wouldn't they? Because why should agricultural or behavioral scientists be included in such endorsements? If the tools were not portable and the curiousity and techniques universal -- you wouldn't have Scientific American, Science Magazine or the Ted Talks..

Reading a magazine or watching TedTalks is not the same as earning credentials and studying for years in the climate field

 

[BULLDOG]

I was just watching a press conference with Ben Carson. He said he's a scientist and "investigates" things.

He thinks pyramids are grain silos. He feels evolution is a Satanic conspiracy and climate change a scam.

If that's the result of his "research", can he really call himself a "scientist"?

The theory of evolution is the result of the work of scientists.

Ben Carson considers those scientists satanic, just because he disagrees with them. By that measure, that justifies considering Carson a tool of the Devil to anyone who disagrees with his science.

No -- Ben Carson understands the 200 years of science that has been done SINCE Darwin died. His beef was with the leap to conclusions that Darwin made without the availability of scientific evidence. If you showed a jar of fruit flies with 20 new species in it that was "created" last Wednesday -- his head would spin like BeetleJuice.

Evolution nows allows the possibility that missing links are irrelevant. That sudden and ABRUPT changes in DNA could be created by things legally referred to as "acts of God" -- like Cosmic Ray showers and other stressors.

So you are backing off of the "God created everything as it is today" claim that is the core of creationism.

Let's say I don't see faith as a bad thing. EVEN AS a scientist. It makes you humble and less likely to bully others with your authority.. Nobody likes "know - it - alls...

Well,make up your mind. Do you believe God created everything in the form it is today, which is the core of creationism, or not?

 

[Iceweasel]

While the Right credits Gore with "inventing" the internet, his influence in the creation is undeniable, Gore himself modestly takes credit for nothing more than arranging the funding of its development while he served in Congress.

http://web.eecs.umich.edu/~fessler/misc/funny/gore,net.txt
Last year the Vice President made a straightforward statement on his role.
He said: "During my service in the United States Congress I took the
initiative in creating the Internet."

Yeah, it says in Congress he took the INITIATIVE, it doesn't say in Congress I created.
Learn to read English and assimilate, you foreigner!

Learn to not try to speak English out of your ass. He was taking credit for it in English, not speaking Special Ed.

"During my service in the United States Congress I took the
initiative in creating the Internet."

 

[flacaltenn]

Ben Carson is a scientist. To say otherwise is sheer stupidity.

Ben Carson is also proof that scientists are not perfect creatures, and some of them are dumb as a bag of bricks. Remember that next time you want to spew some global warming bullshit.

---
Ben Carson was a "scientist" when, and only when, he was practicing neurosurgery AND not making conclusions beyond his medical expertise.
He knows little about evolutionary biology, and to form a belief on that subject without surveying the evidence is UNSCIENTIFIC.

In climatology, only about 3% of scientists have credibility in disputing ACC claims believed by the overwhelming majority of climate science specialists.
.

Well you're wrong about any strict compartmentalization of science. MOST of it is fungible and movable between disciplines and happens all the time.

But SPECIFICALLY -- if what you said about only 3% having credibility to analyze or comment on climate change WERE to be true -- Then all those lists of "Academies of Science" PR endorsements of Global Warming would be worthless. Wouldn't they? Because why should agricultural or behavioral scientists be included in such endorsements? If the tools were not portable and the curiousity and techniques universal -- you wouldn't have Scientific American, Science Magazine or the Ted Talks..

Reading a magazine or watching TedTalks is not the same as earning credentials and studying for years in the climate field

Guys I've worked with go from biomedical to military to earth resource imaging to space instruments in a ten year span. There are several academic pathways to a "climate science" degree and SOME of them are lot more deficient that a good physics degree.

And if you can enjoy and read Scientific American cover to cover -- you shouldn't have a whit a trouble understanding a 10,000 year temperature proxy study. Took Botanists, geologists, entomoligists, chemists, oceanographers, instrumentation engineers, physicists , and a busload of OTHER disciplines to make a "hockey stick"... Climate scientists are NOT all that..

 

[BULLDOG]

While the Right credits Gore with "inventing" the internet, his influence in the creation is undeniable, Gore himself modestly takes credit for nothing more than arranging the funding of its development while he served in Congress.

http://web.eecs.umich.edu/~fessler/misc/funny/gore,net.txt
Last year the Vice President made a straightforward statement on his role.
He said: "During my service in the United States Congress I took the
initiative in creating the Internet."

Yeah, it says in Congress he took the INITIATIVE, it doesn't say in Congress I created.
Learn to read English and assimilate, you foreigner!

Learn to not try to speak English out of your ass. He was taking credit for it in English, not speaking Special Ed.

"During my service in the United States Congress I took the
initiative in creating the Internet."

Shrub took the initiative to start the travesty of the Iraq war. Does that mean he actually fought?

 

[amrchaos]

I was just watching a press conference with Ben Carson. He said he's a scientist and "investigates" things.

He thinks pyramids are grain silos. He feels evolution is a Satanic conspiracy and climate change a scam.

If that's the result of his "research", can he really call himself a "scientist"?

Medical doctors and physicians usually have undergraduate degrees in either biology or chemistry (some physics).

So, yes, he can be called a scientist--but that is a bit too generic. It is not so easy to jump fields like from chemistry to archaeology.

So, unless he has some formal training in the field, we should not let him become an expert in fields outside the medical field he specialize in.

 

[flacaltenn]

I was just watching a press conference with Ben Carson. He said he's a scientist and "investigates" things.

He thinks pyramids are grain silos. He feels evolution is a Satanic conspiracy and climate change a scam.

If that's the result of his "research", can he really call himself a "scientist"?

The theory of evolution is the result of the work of scientists.

Ben Carson considers those scientists satanic, just because he disagrees with them. By that measure, that justifies considering Carson a tool of the Devil to anyone who disagrees with his science.

No -- Ben Carson understands the 200 years of science that has been done SINCE Darwin died. His beef was with the leap to conclusions that Darwin made without the availability of scientific evidence. If you showed a jar of fruit flies with 20 new species in it that was "created" last Wednesday -- his head would spin like BeetleJuice.

Evolution nows allows the possibility that missing links are irrelevant. That sudden and ABRUPT changes in DNA could be created by things legally referred to as "acts of God" -- like Cosmic Ray showers and other stressors.

So you are backing off of the "God created everything as it is today" claim that is the core of creationism.

Let's say I don't see faith as a bad thing. EVEN AS a scientist. It makes you humble and less likely to bully others with your authority.. Nobody likes "know - it - alls...

Well,make up your mind. Do you believe God created everything in the form it is today, which is the core of creationism, or not?

I don't know.. But I DO KNOW --- that Darwin did not fully understand "the origin of the species"..

 

[PK1]

Ben Carson is a scientist. To say otherwise is sheer stupidity.

Ben Carson is also proof that scientists are not perfect creatures, and some of them are dumb as a bag of bricks. Remember that next time you want to spew some global warming bullshit.

---
Ben Carson was a "scientist" when, and only when, he was practicing neurosurgery AND not making conclusions beyond his medical expertise.
He knows little about evolutionary biology, and to form a belief on that subject without surveying the evidence is UNSCIENTIFIC.

In climatology, only about 3% of scientists have credibility in disputing ACC claims believed by the overwhelming majority of climate science specialists.
.

Well you're wrong about any strict compartmentalization of science. MOST of it is fungible and movable between disciplines and happens all the time.

But SPECIFICALLY -- if what you said about only 3% having credibility to analyze or comment on climate change WERE to be true -- Then all those lists of "Academies of Science" PR endorsements of Global Warming would be worthless. Wouldn't they? Because why should agricultural or behavioral scientists be included in such endorsements? If the tools were not portable and the curiousity and techniques universal -- you wouldn't have Scientific American, Science Magazine or the Ted Talks..

---
Science covers lots of specialties, as you know. Specialties have their own methods of scientific investigation & technical interpretation.

Yes, all scientists have basic methods of inquiry in common, but a sociologist has no credibility commenting on research by physicists or chemists, unless it's on general logic.

There is no logic in Carson's religion, and that's the problem with taking his views or interpretations seriously ... beyond neurosurgery.
.

 

[BULLDOG]

Ben Carson is a scientist. To say otherwise is sheer stupidity.

Ben Carson is also proof that scientists are not perfect creatures, and some of them are dumb as a bag of bricks. Remember that next time you want to spew some global warming bullshit.

---
Ben Carson was a "scientist" when, and only when, he was practicing neurosurgery AND not making conclusions beyond his medical expertise.
He knows little about evolutionary biology, and to form a belief on that subject without surveying the evidence is UNSCIENTIFIC.

In climatology, only about 3% of scientists have credibility in disputing ACC claims believed by the overwhelming majority of climate science specialists.
.

Well you're wrong about any strict compartmentalization of science. MOST of it is fungible and movable between disciplines and happens all the time.

But SPECIFICALLY -- if what you said about only 3% having credibility to analyze or comment on climate change WERE to be true -- Then all those lists of "Academies of Science" PR endorsements of Global Warming would be worthless. Wouldn't they? Because why should agricultural or behavioral scientists be included in such endorsements? If the tools were not portable and the curiousity and techniques universal -- you wouldn't have Scientific American, Science Magazine or the Ted Talks..

Reading a magazine or watching TedTalks is not the same as earning credentials and studying for years in the climate field

Guys I've worked with go from biomedical to military to earth resource imaging to space instruments in a ten year span. There are several academic pathways to a "climate science" degree and SOME of them are lot more deficient that a good physics degree.

And if you can enjoy and read Scientific American cover to cover -- you shouldn't have a whit a trouble understanding a 10,000 year temperature proxy study. Took Botanists, geologists, entomoligists, chemists, oceanographers, instrumentation engineers, physicists , and a busload of OTHER disciplines to make a "hockey stick"... Climate scientists are NOT all that..

So you are saying that reading a magazine or watching TedTalks is the same as earning credentials and studying for years in the climate field? Really? I have a couple extra hours this weekend. Can I be a climate scientist by Monday?

 

[Iceweasel]

While the Right credits Gore with "inventing" the internet, his influence in the creation is undeniable, Gore himself modestly takes credit for nothing more than arranging the funding of its development while he served in Congress.

http://web.eecs.umich.edu/~fessler/misc/funny/gore,net.txt
Last year the Vice President made a straightforward statement on his role.
He said: "During my service in the United States Congress I took the
initiative in creating the Internet."

Yeah, it says in Congress he took the INITIATIVE, it doesn't say in Congress I created.
Learn to read English and assimilate, you foreigner!

Learn to not try to speak English out of your ass. He was taking credit for it in English, not speaking Special Ed.

"During my service in the United States Congress I took the
initiative in creating the Internet."

Shrub took the initiative to start the travesty of the Iraq war. Does that mean he actually fought?

Huh? It means he took the initiative and was responsible for it. Gore, like you, is full of shit.

 

[BULLDOG]

I was just watching a press conference with Ben Carson. He said he's a scientist and "investigates" things.

He thinks pyramids are grain silos. He feels evolution is a Satanic conspiracy and climate change a scam.

If that's the result of his "research", can he really call himself a "scientist"?

Medical doctors and physicians usually have undergraduate degrees in either biology or chemistry (some physics).

So, yes, he can be called a scientist--but that is a bit too generic. It is not so easy to jump fields like from chemistry to archaeology.

So, unless he has some formal training in the field, we should not let him become an expert in fields outside the medical field he specialize in.

.Being an expert in one field doesn't make you an expert in all fields.

 

[BULLDOG]

The theory of evolution is the result of the work of scientists.

Ben Carson considers those scientists satanic, just because he disagrees with them. By that measure, that justifies considering Carson a tool of the Devil to anyone who disagrees with his science.

No -- Ben Carson understands the 200 years of science that has been done SINCE Darwin died. His beef was with the leap to conclusions that Darwin made without the availability of scientific evidence. If you showed a jar of fruit flies with 20 new species in it that was "created" last Wednesday -- his head would spin like BeetleJuice.

Evolution nows allows the possibility that missing links are irrelevant. That sudden and ABRUPT changes in DNA could be created by things legally referred to as "acts of God" -- like Cosmic Ray showers and other stressors.

So you are backing off of the "God created everything as it is today" claim that is the core of creationism.

Let's say I don't see faith as a bad thing. EVEN AS a scientist. It makes you humble and less likely to bully others with your authority.. Nobody likes "know - it - alls...

Well,make up your mind. Do you believe God created everything in the form it is today, which is the core of creationism, or not?

I don't know.. But I DO KNOW --- that Darwin did not fully understand "the origin of the species"..

Nobody ever said it was a complete explanation. Creationists claim their theory is complete and unassailable.

 

[amrchaos]

Ben Carson isn't a scientist, he isn't even a surgeon. He left a sponge in someone's brain that he operated on. I'd guess today if asked for a show of hands who would want this creepy freak to put a Band-Aid on a cut the number of hands would be limited to the bugwits posting here that support him.

He's finished. His creepiness, lying, and insane 'proclamations' and rhetoric are quickly revealing him for what he is.

An also ran who has been doing his best to hide who he is.

He is doing that on purpose.

He does not want the nomination, he is trying to get his name out as another important Black leader.

Then he will capitalize from a Black social conservative view point--which stands to make a whole lot more money than what Sharpton and Jesse Jackson could do from a liberal viewpoint.

Ben Carson is deliberately trying to kill his momentum, but these damn conservatives are too angry to buy into the "Crazy brain surgeon with no reason to become president" line he is feeding them.

Carson is 'raising hell' among the left and that is reason enough to support him for the time being). Come the primaries, I doubt Carson will have much notice.