Ranking the quality of a scientist

Claymore

Claymore

Executive Member
Joined
Jan 20, 2004
Messages
8,910
Reaction score
1,909
Location
JHB
This was an interesting article on ways of ranking how good a scientist is. It's of particular reference to scientists like Intelligent Design advocate Michael Behe, who is sometimes trumpeted by ID supporters as being a top-notch scientist.

What kind of scientist is Michael Behe?
 
Maybe Dawkins should also go back to the lab and try and figure out how life started or try and explain the origins of genomic information, or how standard neo-Darwinian mechanisms (RM+NS) can create higher taxonomic categories.
 
Fearisgood said:
Maybe Dawkins should also go back to the lab and try and figure out how life started or try and explain the origins of genomic information, or how standard neo-Darwinian mechanisms (RM+NS) can create higher taxonomic categories.
Click to expand...

Or prehaps you should indicate a basic comprehension of the concepts and Ideas you like to pull out of a hat..... No cutting and pasting now, your own words.
 
Fearisgood said:
Maybe Dawkins should also go back to the lab and try and figure out how life started or try and explain the origins of genomic information, or how standard neo-Darwinian mechanisms (RM+NS) can create higher taxonomic categories.
Click to expand...

Eh? Relevance to the topic?
 
Either trolling or genuinely trying to show Dawkins is not a good scientist? If I compare Dawkins with Behe, I think it is quite clear who is the better scientist.

Perhaps he feel Behe is an unfair baseline? Which ID proponent would he rather use, one wonders?

I'd suggest Francis Collins myself. But he doesn't adhere to ID. Oops.
 
The circumstances under which it came to be censored, following the intervention of Dr Richard Dawkins, are described in the pages on Scientific Censorship).

Richard Dawkins has been referred to as Darwin's Rottweiler...
In my personal opinion a quality scientist will rather systematically debunk bogus claims in an article than describe pages to scientific censorship... One of the very reasons Karl Popper hailed science...

Richard Dawkins in action
This should clear up the matter why you do not find peer reviewed articles of certain subjects in scientific journals...
Suppression and oppression is the name of the game...

Will this also be censored because the truth should not be told?
 
Mr TB said:
This should clear up the matter why you do not find peer reviewed articles of certain subjects in scientific journals...[/U][/COLOR]
Click to expand...

No, it's because they're not being written!
 
Claymore said:
No, it's because they're not being written!
Click to expand...

No no, they're certainly being written, TB and his friends find them all over the internet, however they're not being published by publications that require peer review.

My personal theory is that the copies sent for peer review end up being smeared illegibly with tears, first from laughter, then from frustration, and then from sorrow, and then the reviewer bins it and tries to think about more pleasant things like trainwrecks.
 
alloytoo said:
No no, they're certainly being written, TB and his friends find them all over the internet, however they're not being published by publications that require peer review.

My personal theory is that the copies sent for peer review end up being smeared illegibly with tears, first from laughter, then from frustration, and then from sorrow, and then the reviewer bins it and tries to think about more pleasant things like trainwrecks.
Click to expand...

The mentioned article was not written by a creationist, however he has been blamed to be an ally of their's because he does not support the views of the majority.

Why suppress and oppress the publication of the article by one person?
You are ducking the real issue, a so-called quality scientist interfered with the publication of scientific material...

Secondly, Cyghost wanted to laugh or cry, but on alternative science serious flaws in the claim for horse evolution was exposed...
The writer even admitted that Kathleen Hunt even admitted to such flaws...

I am not a creationist either. I accept the biblical account of creation as a fair reflection of what happened in ancient history...
Biochemistry in my opinion forms the backbone of biology not evolution...

The Missing Link
 
Last edited:
cyghost said:
Kathleen Hunt on a horse
I recommend the summary for a quick browse.

I went the only way one can go - I lol'ed at alternative science. And I still do.
Click to expand...

Certainly may you are informed enough to understand the flaw in the argument for horse evolution and that in South America the process is actually taking place in the opposite direction as predicted... and one museum actually realised the error in horse evolution. Surf the net...

Quote: Leaning heavily on the writer of the site Alternative but this is a partial quote

"This "FAQ" should be handed back to Kathleen Hunt and she should be asked to eliminate her personal beliefs and substitute scientific facts instead. For example, she should eliminate undefined prejudicial terms such as 'sequence' when this is the very matter she has to prove.

Second she should be asked to replace assertions with proof. For example, if Miohippus is a descendant of Hyracotherium as Hunt asserts, then she should present us with the evidence of what it is that connects them scientifically and how this evidence proves their relationship.

She should explain the strength of this evidence. For example, morphological resemblance between fossils in a geologically broken sequence is weak circumstantial evidence.

She should do this for all the other fossils that she says are related. Whatever is left after this process, that is the sum total of scientific knowledge on the evolution of horses."
Click to expand...

Thanking ALTERNATIVESCIENCE for a sober thought on evolution...
 
Last edited:
alloytoo said:
Is this Milton fellow a scientist, is this relevant to this thread?
Click to expand...
If Punctuated Equilibruim is science why quote it under the philosophy section?... oh yes read read his site, see what he says about Punctuated Equilibruim...
His credentials is quoted there and the reasons why talk.origins is dishonest.
 
alloytoo said:
No no, they're certainly being written, TB and his friends find them all over the internet, however they're not being published by publications that require peer review.

My personal theory is that the copies sent for peer review end up being smeared illegibly with tears, first from laughter, then from frustration, and then from sorrow, and then the reviewer bins it and tries to think about more pleasant things like trainwrecks.
Click to expand...

I apologise for posting your piece on punctuated equillibrium in my blog and then rip it to pieces for not really being science. I should have given you credit... However everone should now be able to see it is actually pure speculation and not science with the wording used...
 
Mr TB said:
I apologise for posting your piece on punctuated equillibrium in my blog and then rip it to pieces for not really being science. I should have given you credit... However everone should now be able to see it is actually pure speculation and not science with the wording used...
Click to expand...

Highlighting the word "May" and then indicating a clear misunderstanding of it's usage in this context (see below) is hardly "ripping apart", if anything you made youself look like an idiot.

May from Here

1. (used to express possibility): It may rain.
2. (used to express opportunity or permission): You may enter.
3. (used to express contingency, esp. in clauses indicating condition, concession, purpose, result, etc.): I may be wrong but I think you would be wise to go. Times may change but human nature stays the same.
4. (used to express wish or prayer): May you live to an old age.
5. Archaic. (used to express ability or power.)
Click to expand...
 
alloytoo said:
Highlighting the word "May" and then indicating a clear misunderstanding of it's usage in this context (see below) is hardly "ripping apart", if anything you made youself look like an idiot.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

I my personal opinion you may look like like an idiot because you are the one misusing the meaning of the word may to your advantage...

You may be wrong or you may be right.. clearly not scientific..

The law of gravity which you love to quote is assertive...

If I throw the stone up in the air it may come down... bulcrap... it will come down.. stop twisting language to fit your halfbaked hypothesis...
 
if you throw a stone up, it may come down.. depending on the strength of gravity you are exerting on the stone, or the body you are standing on exerts on the stone. If an object above the stone exerts a stronger force of gravity on it, it will go "up" in your terms of reference.

But then I think this basic example of gravity will go over your head.
 
ToxicBunny said:
if you throw a stone up, it may come down.. depending on the strength of gravity you are exerting on the stone, or the body you are standing on exerts on the stone. If an object above the stone exerts a stronger force of gravity on it, it will go "up" in your terms of reference.

But then I think this basic example of gravity will go over your head.
Click to expand...

Too many apples, only one cranium?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X