The Statler Waldorf Balcony

[Statler Waldorf]

---

First off, in my defense, asking for names is ridiculous.

I don't disagree and I know it was not you that asked.

Second, I noted that Kurt Wise has made a statement equating to placing ideology over science, thus showing him to be a poor scientist.

You can't have your cake and eat it too.

Here I disagree. Just because one holds to a certain ideology does not mean that they cannot practice science well. I think Kurt Wise was a Christian and a Creationist when he studied under Gould. If that is the case, then clearly Gould (and whoever else was on Wise's PhD defense board at Harvard) thought Wise could practice good science and have such an ideology.

Thirdly, I note that the people involved hold questionable motives, thus placing them under scrutiny.

And certainly no evolutionary scientist has questionable motives, right?

Saying that you'll deny facts and evidence because your magic man said so is plainly ridiculous - especially ridiculous to hear from a scientist.

I don't think Wise said he would "deny facts and evidence". I think he said exactly the opposite. I think he said that he would be able to practice science based on the facts and evidence even if it goes against his ideology and even if he still holds that ideology.

Also, I gave out examples to combat the "He has a PhD and that makes him worth listening too" with actual examples of wing nuts who also happen to be educate.

No problem here. That argument is ridiculous on either side. It is much more productive to discuss the actual issues.

To conclude, yes, the objective facts matter in the YEC debate. But one must keep in mind that those who clearly state they will ignore science, and thus the objectivity, to match their beliefs, will clearly contribute misleading information if need be. Thus the science is poisoned. It's called "poisoning the well"

As I said above, I think you are misconstruing Wise's statement.

Go suck an egg, you troll.

Brilliant, Syn. (Yes, you can read "sarcasm" here.)

Do you not have the capability of discussing issues with someone who disagrees with you without attempts at belittling them personally?

---

A lot of guys on here are hard one Dr. Wise for speaking of how his ideology relates to his Science, but they make the mistake of assuming that those who review articles for peer reviewed sources are not biased themselves. Here is an article out of Discover that talks of this very thing.

http://discovermagazine.com/2006/apr/dinosaur-dna

When Dr. Mary Schweitzer found the reminants of red blood cells in Dinosaur fossils she found out just how difficult it is to get good science published when it appears to "buck" the current system. Unlike Dr. Wise though, this particular reviewer wouldn't let any amount of evidence change his Science, not his ideaology but his Scientific views themselves. How is that good science?

That article, published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, sparked a small flurry of headlines. Horner and others regarded Schweitzer's research as carefully performed and credible. Nonetheless, says Horner, "most people were very skeptical. Frequently in our field people come up with new ideas, and opponents say, 'I just don't believe it.' She was having a hard time publishing in journals."


"I had one reviewer tell me that he didn't care what the data said, he knew that what I was finding wasn't possible. I wrote back and said, 'Well, what data would convince you?' And he said, 'None.' "

---

There is no biblical teaching that women are inferior to men.

So when Timothy 2:11-12 tell us "Let a woman learn in silence with all submission. And I do not permit a woman to teach or have authority over a man, but to be in silence.", you don't see that as teaching that a woman is inferior to a man?

Nope. Just laying out roles in the Church. Give me a verse that says, "Women are inferior to Men" and I may agree wtih you. After his resurrection Jesus first appeared to a woman. There will be women in Heaven, there will be women in Hell. There will be men in heaven, there will be men in hell. God loves them all.

---

Well last time I checked the degree B.S. stood for Bachelor of Science, so I am pretty sure that still counts as a Science degree, not an arts degree. As for the M.A.- the universty was originally going to make it an M.S. but they realized that GeoScience is better served by final research projects not a research thesis. So that is the only difference. Nice try at belittling my education, but fail.

I for one couldn't care less what your supposed qualifications are - they're irrelevant to the rationality of one's argument in any debate.

I'm still waiting for you to explain to me why you think the Earth is a mere 6,000 to 10,000 years old.

They are irrelevant in a debate? Seriously? So a second grader would fair just as well in a debate as a Ph.D? I disagree.

---

---

Ok, let's make an agreement, since I am kind of getting tired of this. How about we agree to both use our own sources and we will discuss their validity based on the material given? So I won't make fun of your youtube videos and you won't make fun of things just because they are from ICR or CMI? Deal? I think this will be much more productive and we will get more accomplished. Fair?

Your sources are rediculous beyond the most lax standard of credibility, and failure to give them their due redicule would give them a completely false air of some minimum of respectability. If your concept of discussing validity is based on using one piece of shit from your few favority "creation scientists" to justify another, then I must decline to refrain from making fun of each link in your circular chain of shit.

You can say the something valguely similar sounding about ours, but that only reflects fundamental issue, which is you consider a myth from a rather repulsive band of desert nomades to be infallible absolute truths around which all must to made to conform, we found the myth to to be a piece of junk that is an insult to the word garbage because we found it doesn't naturally conform to what we've found to be true. There is no need to waste time trying to bridge the unbridgeable. So long as you deem bible for some fundamental reason to be a better source than any other, we need not talk.

---

That offer was not to you, so I don't care what you think. You have proven time and time again you are not an objective person, no need to continue to do so with posts like this.