Total Posts:21|Showing Posts:1-21
Jump to topic:

Bill Nye/Ken Ham debate evolution.

Skepticalone
Posts: 6,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/4/2014 9:20:58 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Tonight!
http://debatelive.org...
http://goo.gl...
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
khayes
Posts: 1
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/4/2014 8:43:02 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Bill Nye, while I appreciate and share your enthusiasm for knowing more about science and our world, I simply don't get why you wouldn't even more so want to know about the One who designed it all who loves us so much, and who can teach you so much more should you choose to seek Him. That is the one thought that carries me away from this debate. It was an excellent debate, and I appreciate Ken Ham bringing to light the truth about how those who have controlled the scientific community in our education systems have been suppressing those of us who carry a different viewpoint from theirs. I do not find Darwin's theories believable, I do not understand how so much of what he theorized is blindly accepted by much of the scientific community and I believe that true knowledge is suppressed when you allow the pride which is at the heart of atheism to keep you from seeking our Creator.
Kim Hayes
Columbus Ohio
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/4/2014 9:15:54 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/4/2014 8:43:02 PM, khayes wrote:
Bill Nye, while I appreciate and share your enthusiasm for knowing more about science and our world, I simply don't get why you wouldn't even more so want to know about the One who designed it all who loves us so much, and who can teach you so much more should you choose to seek Him. That is the one thought that carries me away from this debate. It was an excellent debate, and I appreciate Ken Ham bringing to light the truth about how those who have controlled the scientific community in our education systems have been suppressing those of us who carry a different viewpoint from theirs. I do not find Darwin's theories believable, I do not understand how so much of what he theorized is blindly accepted by much of the scientific community and I believe that true knowledge is suppressed when you allow the pride which is at the heart of atheism to keep you from seeking our Creator.

There are christians who accept evolution so the last part of your objection is kind of meaningless.

The problem here is that Evolution is unbelievable to you, much like how the earth revolving around the sun was unbelievable to all those christians a long time ago.
joepalcsak
Posts: 409
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/4/2014 9:52:22 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
What a let down! This was a terrible debate, pitting terrible vs even more terrible. Two hours I will never get back. Evidence for a Creator abounds in the information of life, the existence of the laws of physics, and the evidence for the beginning of the universe. It does not rely on Ken Ham's misguided interpretation of Scriptures.

The only possible way to lose such a debate is to try to impose an impossibly young earth as the main talking point. Nye made this his sole point (aside from an inane discourse on the ark) and Ham went after the bait hook, line, and sinker.

Now I know how atheists felt after WLC absolutely shredded the late Christopher Hitchens.
GarretKadeDupre
Posts: 2,023
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/5/2014 6:41:50 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/4/2014 9:52:22 PM, joepalcsak wrote:
What a let down! This was a terrible debate, pitting terrible vs even more terrible. Two hours I will never get back. Evidence for a Creator abounds in the information of life, the existence of the laws of physics, and the evidence for the beginning of the universe. It does not rely on Ken Ham's misguided interpretation of Scriptures.

The only possible way to lose such a debate is to try to impose an impossibly young earth as the main talking point. Nye made this his sole point (aside from an inane discourse on the ark) and Ham went after the bait hook, line, and sinker.

Now I know how atheists felt after WLC absolutely shredded the late Christopher Hitchens.

I agree. Ham was stupid for using the Bible as his primary source of evidence. I mean, seriously? I can have a meaningful debate on Evolution & Creationism without citing a single scripture.
Proof that people witnessed living dinosaurs:
http://www.debate.org...
Drayson
Posts: 288
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/6/2014 11:32:14 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/4/2014 8:43:02 PM, khayes wrote:
Bill Nye, while I appreciate and share your enthusiasm for knowing more about science and our world, I simply don't get why you wouldn't even more so want to know about the One who designed it all who loves us so much, and who can teach you so much more should you choose to seek Him.

That's kind of silly - it's nothing to do with whether he wants to or not, Nye's position is that he doesn't see any reason to believe there IS a so-called "One" who designed it all. You don't have to agree with him, but your statement there indicates you don't even understand his point of view, which you should before criticising it.

That is the one thought that carries me away from this debate. It was an excellent debate, and I appreciate Ken Ham bringing to light the truth about how those who have controlled the scientific community in our education systems have been suppressing those of us who carry a different viewpoint from theirs.

This is a blatant and obvious lie, and I get annoyed at people like Ken Ham claiming it, followed by adherents like you repeating it. It is quite clearly false, evidenced by the fact that people who DO "carry a different viewpoint" are perfectly free to express it - Ken Ham is quite obviously allowed to voice his opinion, therefore he is not being "suppressed". To claim otherwise is to ignore what's right there in front of you.

I do not find Darwin's theories believable

You don't have to. The fact of the matter is that they ARE believable (because people believe them). More to the point, being scientific theories they are testable, falsifiable, and demonstrable - if they pass the criteria for being a scientific theory, it's completely irrelevant how believable they are.
Some of the greatest scientists in the world didn't find Einstein's Theory of Relativity believable when he first published it - understandable, since it's very hard to believe, given the implications do not conform to our everyday perception of space and time. But it doesn't matter one iota how hard people found it to believe, the reality is right there....and Einstinian Relativity still holds true, and has made accurate predictions. Much of our modern technology even relies on it to be true.

I do not understand how so much of what he theorized is blindly accepted by much of the scientific community

If you understood anything about scientific theory, you'd know that the acceptance of it is anything but "blind". As I explained above.
"I'm not saying I don't trust you...and I'm not saying I do. But I don't"

-Topper Harley
GarretKadeDupre
Posts: 2,023
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/6/2014 11:55:30 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/6/2014 11:32:14 PM, Drayson wrote:
At 2/4/2014 8:43:02 PM, khayes wrote:
Bill Nye, while I appreciate and share your enthusiasm for knowing more about science and our world, I simply don't get why you wouldn't even more so want to know about the One who designed it all who loves us so much, and who can teach you so much more should you choose to seek Him.

That's kind of silly - it's nothing to do with whether he wants to or not, Nye's position is that he doesn't see any reason to believe there IS a so-called "One" who designed it all. You don't have to agree with him, but your statement there indicates you don't even understand his point of view, which you should before criticising it.

That is the one thought that carries me away from this debate. It was an excellent debate, and I appreciate Ken Ham bringing to light the truth about how those who have controlled the scientific community in our education systems have been suppressing those of us who carry a different viewpoint from theirs.

This is a blatant and obvious lie,

No, it's not: Google Richard Sternburg.

and I get annoyed at people like Ken Ham claiming it, followed by adherents like you repeating it. It is quite clearly false, evidenced by the fact that people who DO "carry a different viewpoint" are perfectly free to express it - Ken Ham is quite obviously allowed to voice his opinion, therefore he is not being "suppressed". To claim otherwise is to ignore what's right there in front of you.
Proof that people witnessed living dinosaurs:
http://www.debate.org...
Drayson
Posts: 288
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/7/2014 12:06:56 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/6/2014 11:55:30 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
At 2/6/2014 11:32:14 PM, Drayson wrote:
At 2/4/2014 8:43:02 PM, khayes wrote:
Bill Nye, while I appreciate and share your enthusiasm for knowing more about science and our world, I simply don't get why you wouldn't even more so want to know about the One who designed it all who loves us so much, and who can teach you so much more should you choose to seek Him.

That's kind of silly - it's nothing to do with whether he wants to or not, Nye's position is that he doesn't see any reason to believe there IS a so-called "One" who designed it all. You don't have to agree with him, but your statement there indicates you don't even understand his point of view, which you should before criticising it.

That is the one thought that carries me away from this debate. It was an excellent debate, and I appreciate Ken Ham bringing to light the truth about how those who have controlled the scientific community in our education systems have been suppressing those of us who carry a different viewpoint from theirs.

This is a blatant and obvious lie,

No, it's not: Google Richard Sternburg.

Okay, I just did and I'm not sure what I'm supposed to be looking at exactly. Doesn't look like he's been suppressed in any way.
"I'm not saying I don't trust you...and I'm not saying I do. But I don't"

-Topper Harley
GarretKadeDupre
Posts: 2,023
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/7/2014 12:09:47 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/7/2014 12:06:56 AM, Drayson wrote:
At 2/6/2014 11:55:30 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
At 2/6/2014 11:32:14 PM, Drayson wrote:
At 2/4/2014 8:43:02 PM, khayes wrote:
Bill Nye, while I appreciate and share your enthusiasm for knowing more about science and our world, I simply don't get why you wouldn't even more so want to know about the One who designed it all who loves us so much, and who can teach you so much more should you choose to seek Him.

That's kind of silly - it's nothing to do with whether he wants to or not, Nye's position is that he doesn't see any reason to believe there IS a so-called "One" who designed it all. You don't have to agree with him, but your statement there indicates you don't even understand his point of view, which you should before criticising it.

That is the one thought that carries me away from this debate. It was an excellent debate, and I appreciate Ken Ham bringing to light the truth about how those who have controlled the scientific community in our education systems have been suppressing those of us who carry a different viewpoint from theirs.

This is a blatant and obvious lie,

No, it's not: Google Richard Sternburg.

Okay, I just did and I'm not sure what I'm supposed to be looking at exactly. Doesn't look like he's been suppressed in any way.

http://www.discovery.org...
Proof that people witnessed living dinosaurs:
http://www.debate.org...
Drayson
Posts: 288
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/7/2014 12:24:36 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/7/2014 12:09:47 AM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
At 2/7/2014 12:06:56 AM, Drayson wrote:
At 2/6/2014 11:55:30 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
At 2/6/2014 11:32:14 PM, Drayson wrote:
At 2/4/2014 8:43:02 PM, khayes wrote:
Bill Nye, while I appreciate and share your enthusiasm for knowing more about science and our world, I simply don't get why you wouldn't even more so want to know about the One who designed it all who loves us so much, and who can teach you so much more should you choose to seek Him.

That's kind of silly - it's nothing to do with whether he wants to or not, Nye's position is that he doesn't see any reason to believe there IS a so-called "One" who designed it all. You don't have to agree with him, but your statement there indicates you don't even understand his point of view, which you should before criticising it.

That is the one thought that carries me away from this debate. It was an excellent debate, and I appreciate Ken Ham bringing to light the truth about how those who have controlled the scientific community in our education systems have been suppressing those of us who carry a different viewpoint from theirs.

This is a blatant and obvious lie,

No, it's not: Google Richard Sternburg.

Okay, I just did and I'm not sure what I'm supposed to be looking at exactly. Doesn't look like he's been suppressed in any way.

http://www.discovery.org...

Yeah, total nonsense. He's faced lots of vocal disagreement and people taking the mickey out of him - not suppression. Unfortunately for people like him, the same rights that grant him the freedom to express his own views also give other people the freedom to make fun of him.
"I'm not saying I don't trust you...and I'm not saying I do. But I don't"

-Topper Harley
GarretKadeDupre
Posts: 2,023
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/7/2014 12:27:48 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/7/2014 12:24:36 AM, Drayson wrote:
At 2/7/2014 12:09:47 AM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
At 2/7/2014 12:06:56 AM, Drayson wrote:
At 2/6/2014 11:55:30 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
At 2/6/2014 11:32:14 PM, Drayson wrote:
At 2/4/2014 8:43:02 PM, khayes wrote:
Bill Nye, while I appreciate and share your enthusiasm for knowing more about science and our world, I simply don't get why you wouldn't even more so want to know about the One who designed it all who loves us so much, and who can teach you so much more should you choose to seek Him.

That's kind of silly - it's nothing to do with whether he wants to or not, Nye's position is that he doesn't see any reason to believe there IS a so-called "One" who designed it all. You don't have to agree with him, but your statement there indicates you don't even understand his point of view, which you should before criticising it.

That is the one thought that carries me away from this debate. It was an excellent debate, and I appreciate Ken Ham bringing to light the truth about how those who have controlled the scientific community in our education systems have been suppressing those of us who carry a different viewpoint from theirs.

This is a blatant and obvious lie,

No, it's not: Google Richard Sternburg.

Okay, I just did and I'm not sure what I'm supposed to be looking at exactly. Doesn't look like he's been suppressed in any way.

http://www.discovery.org...

Yeah, total nonsense. He's faced lots of vocal disagreement and people taking the mickey out of him - not suppression. Unfortunately for people like him, the same rights that grant him the freedom to express his own views also give other people the freedom to make fun of him.

Yea, you're full of sh!t just like I thought. You obviously didn't read the paper, or don't know how to read.

The U.S.A. goverment investigation stated this in the link I just gave you says:

Major findings of this staff investigation include:

Officials at the Smithsonian"s National Museum of Natural History created a
hostile work environment intended to force Dr. Sternberg to resign his position
as a Research Associate in violation of his free speech and civil rights.
Proof that people witnessed living dinosaurs:
http://www.debate.org...
dvande28
Posts: 32
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/7/2014 8:15:41 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/7/2014 12:27:48 AM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
At 2/7/2014 12:24:36 AM, Drayson wrote:
At 2/7/2014 12:09:47 AM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
At 2/7/2014 12:06:56 AM, Drayson wrote:
At 2/6/2014 11:55:30 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
At 2/6/2014 11:32:14 PM, Drayson wrote:
At 2/4/2014 8:43:02 PM, khayes wrote:
Bill Nye, while I appreciate and share your enthusiasm for knowing more about science and our world, I simply don't get why you wouldn't even more so want to know about the One who designed it all who loves us so much, and who can teach you so much more should you choose to seek Him.

That's kind of silly - it's nothing to do with whether he wants to or not, Nye's position is that he doesn't see any reason to believe there IS a so-called "One" who designed it all. You don't have to agree with him, but your statement there indicates you don't even understand his point of view, which you should before criticising it.

That is the one thought that carries me away from this debate. It was an excellent debate, and I appreciate Ken Ham bringing to light the truth about how those who have controlled the scientific community in our education systems have been suppressing those of us who carry a different viewpoint from theirs.

This is a blatant and obvious lie,

No, it's not: Google Richard Sternburg.

Okay, I just did and I'm not sure what I'm supposed to be looking at exactly. Doesn't look like he's been suppressed in any way.

http://www.discovery.org...

Yeah, total nonsense. He's faced lots of vocal disagreement and people taking the mickey out of him - not suppression. Unfortunately for people like him, the same rights that grant him the freedom to express his own views also give other people the freedom to make fun of him.

Yea, you're full of sh!t just like I thought. You obviously didn't read the paper, or don't know how to read.

The U.S.A. goverment investigation stated this in the link I just gave you says:

Major findings of this staff investigation include:

Officials at the Smithsonian"s National Museum of Natural History created a
hostile work environment intended to force Dr. Sternberg to resign his position
as a Research Associate in violation of his free speech and civil rights.


Actually, you are wrong. the report was never accepted into the Congressional record and Sternberg was never even an employee at the Smithsonian.
http://www.scientificamerican.com...
GarretKadeDupre
Posts: 2,023
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/7/2014 11:37:46 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/7/2014 8:15:41 AM, dvande28 wrote:
At 2/7/2014 12:27:48 AM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
At 2/7/2014 12:24:36 AM, Drayson wrote:
At 2/7/2014 12:09:47 AM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
At 2/7/2014 12:06:56 AM, Drayson wrote:
At 2/6/2014 11:55:30 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
At 2/6/2014 11:32:14 PM, Drayson wrote:
At 2/4/2014 8:43:02 PM, khayes wrote:
Bill Nye, while I appreciate and share your enthusiasm for knowing more about science and our world, I simply don't get why you wouldn't even more so want to know about the One who designed it all who loves us so much, and who can teach you so much more should you choose to seek Him.

That's kind of silly - it's nothing to do with whether he wants to or not, Nye's position is that he doesn't see any reason to believe there IS a so-called "One" who designed it all. You don't have to agree with him, but your statement there indicates you don't even understand his point of view, which you should before criticising it.

That is the one thought that carries me away from this debate. It was an excellent debate, and I appreciate Ken Ham bringing to light the truth about how those who have controlled the scientific community in our education systems have been suppressing those of us who carry a different viewpoint from theirs.

This is a blatant and obvious lie,

No, it's not: Google Richard Sternburg.

Okay, I just did and I'm not sure what I'm supposed to be looking at exactly. Doesn't look like he's been suppressed in any way.

http://www.discovery.org...

Yeah, total nonsense. He's faced lots of vocal disagreement and people taking the mickey out of him - not suppression. Unfortunately for people like him, the same rights that grant him the freedom to express his own views also give other people the freedom to make fun of him.

Yea, you're full of sh!t just like I thought. You obviously didn't read the paper, or don't know how to read.

The U.S.A. goverment investigation stated this in the link I just gave you says:

Major findings of this staff investigation include:

Officials at the Smithsonian"s National Museum of Natural History created a
hostile work environment intended to force Dr. Sternberg to resign his position
as a Research Associate in violation of his free speech and civil rights.


Actually, you are wrong. the report was never accepted into the Congressional record and Sternberg was never even an employee at the Smithsonian.
http://www.scientificamerican.com...

Oh c'mon, you don't know how to read either?

I'm not wrong. I never said the report was accepted into the Congressional record and neither did I say Sternberg was an employee. Why don't you go troll somewhere else?
Proof that people witnessed living dinosaurs:
http://www.debate.org...
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/7/2014 12:11:22 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/7/2014 11:37:46 AM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:

To be fair, you did say that it was the results of the report. What you didn't say was that the report is clearly hogwash, as evidenced by the actual facts of the case.

http://en.wikipedia.org...

"Observers have said that facts of the case simply do not support the conclusions of the report".

You used him as someone who was "suppressed" for his beliefs...when he was actually "suppressed" for his version of peer review:

"As managing editor it was my prerogative to choose the editor who would work directly on the paper, and as I was best qualified among the editors I chose myself."

In reality, he had already resigned, and this was his last issue to work on...and he chose to publish something without following proper ethical procedure. He continues to claim it was reviewed by people other than him...but won't name them, even though every other year all reviewers were identified.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
GarretKadeDupre
Posts: 2,023
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/7/2014 12:15:21 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/7/2014 12:11:22 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 2/7/2014 11:37:46 AM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:


To be fair, you did say that it was the results of the report. What you didn't say was that the report is clearly hogwash, as evidenced by the actual facts of the case.

http://en.wikipedia.org...

"Observers have said that facts of the case simply do not support the conclusions of the report".

I don't trust these anonymous observers. Do you have more convincing evidence?

You used him as someone who was "suppressed" for his beliefs...when he was actually "suppressed" for his version of peer review:

The e-mails actually demonstrate that he was suppressed for his beliefs, too. He was coerced into resigning based on his association with an ID promoting group.

"As managing editor it was my prerogative to choose the editor who would work directly on the paper, and as I was best qualified among the editors I chose myself."

In reality, he had already resigned, and this was his last issue to work on...and he chose to publish something without following proper ethical procedure.

What's an ethical rule he broke?

He continues to claim it was reviewed by people other than him...but won't name them, even though every other year all reviewers were identified.

Can you point me to somewhere that says every other year all reviewers are identified for all other papers?
Proof that people witnessed living dinosaurs:
http://www.debate.org...
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/7/2014 12:24:45 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/7/2014 12:15:21 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
At 2/7/2014 12:11:22 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 2/7/2014 11:37:46 AM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:


To be fair, you did say that it was the results of the report. What you didn't say was that the report is clearly hogwash, as evidenced by the actual facts of the case.

http://en.wikipedia.org...

"Observers have said that facts of the case simply do not support the conclusions of the report".

I don't trust these anonymous observers. Do you have more convincing evidence?

They aren't anonymous. That is a direct quote from wikipedia, and is cited.

Do...do you not read these links before making a point on them?

You used him as someone who was "suppressed" for his beliefs...when he was actually "suppressed" for his version of peer review:

The e-mails actually demonstrate that he was suppressed for his beliefs, too. He was coerced into resigning based on his association with an ID promoting group.

Do they? Have you read them? Do you have a copy? I haven't been able to actually find them, as the original site is no longer active. I have what people have said about them...

"As managing editor it was my prerogative to choose the editor who would work directly on the paper, and as I was best qualified among the editors I chose myself."

In reality, he had already resigned, and this was his last issue to work on...and he chose to publish something without following proper ethical procedure.

What's an ethical rule he broke?

Do you not know how peer review works?

It's not "Whatever the editor agrees with", particularly if the editor already has a relationship with the submittor!

He continues to claim it was reviewed by people other than him...but won't name them, even though every other year all reviewers were identified.

Can you point me to somewhere that says every other year all reviewers are identified for all other papers?

I did already. Did you really not actually read the wikipedia article? I mean, yeah, it's wikipedia, but still...
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
GarretKadeDupre
Posts: 2,023
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/7/2014 12:54:28 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/7/2014 12:24:45 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 2/7/2014 12:15:21 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
At 2/7/2014 12:11:22 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 2/7/2014 11:37:46 AM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:


To be fair, you did say that it was the results of the report. What you didn't say was that the report is clearly hogwash, as evidenced by the actual facts of the case.

http://en.wikipedia.org...

"Observers have said that facts of the case simply do not support the conclusions of the report".

I don't trust these anonymous observers. Do you have more convincing evidence?

They aren't anonymous. That is a direct quote from wikipedia, and is cited.

Do...do you not read these links before making a point on them?

There were 2 citations of "observers." Both links led to papers that gave no reason to believe they were written by observers. In fact, as far as I can tell, neither paper even claims to be written by an observer. Also, I read half of one source and skimmed over the other. I can't find anywhere where they actually say that something in the report was wrong, or incorrect. It looks to me like much ado about nothing.

You used him as someone who was "suppressed" for his beliefs...when he was actually "suppressed" for his version of peer review:

The e-mails actually demonstrate that he was suppressed for his beliefs, too. He was coerced into resigning based on his association with an ID promoting group.

Do they? Have you read them? Do you have a copy? I haven't been able to actually find them, as the original site is no longer active. I have what people have said about them...

http://www.discovery.org...

"As managing editor it was my prerogative to choose the editor who would work directly on the paper, and as I was best qualified among the editors I chose myself."

In reality, he had already resigned, and this was his last issue to work on...and he chose to publish something without following proper ethical procedure.

What's an ethical rule he broke?

Do you not know how peer review works?

It's not "Whatever the editor agrees with", particularly if the editor already has a relationship with the submittor!

According to whom?

He continues to claim it was reviewed by people other than him...but won't name them, even though every other year all reviewers were identified.

Can you point me to somewhere that says every other year all reviewers are identified for all other papers?

I did already. Did you really not actually read the wikipedia article? I mean, yeah, it's wikipedia, but still...

It's really long. Where is it? You didn't read my paper, either, lol.
Proof that people witnessed living dinosaurs:
http://www.debate.org...
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/7/2014 3:53:45 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/7/2014 12:54:28 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:

"Observers have said that facts of the case simply do not support the conclusions of the report".

I don't trust these anonymous observers. Do you have more convincing evidence?

They aren't anonymous. That is a direct quote from wikipedia, and is cited.

Do...do you not read these links before making a point on them?

There were 2 citations of "observers." Both links led to papers that gave no reason to believe they were written by observers. In fact, as far as I can tell, neither paper even claims to be written by an observer. Also, I read half of one source and skimmed over the other. I can't find anywhere where they actually say that something in the report was wrong, or incorrect. It looks to me like much ado about nothing.

Observers of the dispute. Words mean things in context. If all you do is skim, then you aregoing to miss things.

http://www.discovery.org...

That's not the emails. That's the report. The emails were an appendix, which is not attached to that PDF of the report.

However, I changed the "1489" to "1490" on a whim, and that was the attachment. So woo for that.

The attachments are telling.

Pg. 10 begins the COOs response to his "requests" of them. Give it a read. It's interesting, particularly where he tried to ask them for money for, basically, no reason whatsoever. Considering the Smithsonian doesn't give grants, and he should know that, it seems almost like an attempt at extortion.

The report is clearly disingenuous when talking about how they thought of implying he should resign. It wasn't in the slightest for his research, it was for his use of the Smithsonian name and pretty explicitly so. Their complaints about his use of the Smithsonian name seem entirely legitimate to me. They say they'd like to either ask him to stop doing so, or imply he should resign, because they don't want him to use their name for the things he's putting out. That seems pretty reasonable to me, since using his association with the Smithsonian is against the rules of the program he's in.

Mr. Lemaitre definitely didn't care for him, but Coddington was willing to step up on his behalf (though, perhaps, with a bit of reluctance).

A few choice quotes, relating to the article publication, which, it was mentioned several times, did not and could not directly affect his position there:

"If there are repercussions for von Sternberg from the article, they should be because of his poor judgment in publishing it".

"The most important issue from the association's standpoint is the quality of the science presented in the Meyer article, rather than its implication for the promotion of the "intelligent design" creationist movement"

The fact that all RAs had to be treated equally was expressly noted, as was the fact that, due to a lack of oversight since his original sponsor croaked, he'd squeaked through with "special" privileges, like holding onto his master key and having a private office.

"It is clear that appropriate reviewers were not chosen...The editor should not be given a complete pass here, even if it were not obligatory for him to pass the article to the paleontologist among the Associate Editors."


"As managing editor it was my prerogative to choose the editor who would work directly on the paper, and as I was best qualified among the editors I chose myself."

In reality, he had already resigned, and this was his last issue to work on...and he chose to publish something without following proper ethical procedure.

What's an ethical rule he broke?

Do you not know how peer review works?

It's not "Whatever the editor agrees with", particularly if the editor already has a relationship with the submittor!

According to whom?

Now you're just trying to be contrary.

There is no one who has reviewed the process who thinks it was appropriate.


He continues to claim it was reviewed by people other than him...but won't name them, even though every other year all reviewers were identified.

Can you point me to somewhere that says every other year all reviewers are identified for all other papers?

I did already. Did you really not actually read the wikipedia article? I mean, yeah, it's wikipedia, but still...

It's really long. Where is it? You didn't read my paper, either, lol.

Which paper?

It's also mentioned in the attachment--unfortunately, I don't know the page number now offhand and I don't feel like hunting for it.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
drhead
Posts: 1,475
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/7/2014 3:55:10 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/7/2014 12:54:28 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
At 2/7/2014 12:24:45 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 2/7/2014 12:15:21 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
At 2/7/2014 12:11:22 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 2/7/2014 11:37:46 AM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:


To be fair, you did say that it was the results of the report. What you didn't say was that the report is clearly hogwash, as evidenced by the actual facts of the case.

http://en.wikipedia.org...

"Observers have said that facts of the case simply do not support the conclusions of the report".

I don't trust these anonymous observers. Do you have more convincing evidence?

They aren't anonymous. That is a direct quote from wikipedia, and is cited.

Do...do you not read these links before making a point on them?

There were 2 citations of "observers." Both links led to papers that gave no reason to believe they were written by observers. In fact, as far as I can tell, neither paper even claims to be written by an observer. Also, I read half of one source and skimmed over the other. I can't find anywhere where they actually say that something in the report was wrong, or incorrect. It looks to me like much ado about nothing.

You used him as someone who was "suppressed" for his beliefs...when he was actually "suppressed" for his version of peer review:

The e-mails actually demonstrate that he was suppressed for his beliefs, too. He was coerced into resigning based on his association with an ID promoting group.

Do they? Have you read them? Do you have a copy? I haven't been able to actually find them, as the original site is no longer active. I have what people have said about them...

http://www.discovery.org...

Why don't you link to the appendix, which actually contains what he asked for? We're not interested in hearing a quote-mined version of the e-mails, we're interested in seeing the e-mails, the entire e-mails, and nothing but the e-mails.

"As managing editor it was my prerogative to choose the editor who would work directly on the paper, and as I was best qualified among the editors I chose myself."

In reality, he had already resigned, and this was his last issue to work on...and he chose to publish something without following proper ethical procedure.

What's an ethical rule he broke?

Do you not know how peer review works?

It's not "Whatever the editor agrees with", particularly if the editor already has a relationship with the submittor!

According to whom?

He continues to claim it was reviewed by people other than him...but won't name them, even though every other year all reviewers were identified.

Can you point me to somewhere that says every other year all reviewers are identified for all other papers?

I did already. Did you really not actually read the wikipedia article? I mean, yeah, it's wikipedia, but still...

It's really long. Where is it? You didn't read my paper, either, lol.
Wall of Fail

"You reject religion... calling it a sickness, to what ends??? Are you a Homosexual??" - Dogknox
"For me, Evolution is a zombie theory. I mean imaginary cartoons and wishful thinking support it?" - Dragonfang
"There are no mental health benefits of atheism. It is devoid of rational thinking and mental protection." - Gabrian
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/7/2014 5:24:57 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/7/2014 12:15:21 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
The e-mails actually demonstrate that he was suppressed for his beliefs, too. He was coerced into resigning based on his association with an ID promoting group.

Actually, no, they dont. Infact, the emails post the opposite.

http://scienceblogs.com...

"The report makes a big deal out of the fact that one SI staffer in particular, Rafeal Lemaitre, was strongly arguing that Sternberg should have his access removed and appeared to be very hostile to him. But as the emails show, his repeated requests for Sternberg to be punished were refused by his superiors, who in fact finally just told him to stop making such a big deal out of it. "

The emails that Genie Scott exchanged were full of admonitions to Smithsonian personnel not to do the things they are now accused of conspiring to do. She urged them not to attack his religious views so as not to make him a martyr. Genie repeatedly tells them to focus solely on the questions of impropriety and see whether they can be proven. She also tells them that Sternberg should not be judged on the basis of his religious views or his creationist views, but solely on the basis of his work as a scientist."
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/7/2014 5:31:42 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/7/2014 3:53:45 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 2/7/2014 12:54:28 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:

"Observers have said that facts of the case simply do not support the conclusions of the report".

I don't trust these anonymous observers. Do you have more convincing evidence?

They aren't anonymous. That is a direct quote from wikipedia, and is cited.

Do...do you not read these links before making a point on them?

There were 2 citations of "observers." Both links led to papers that gave no reason to believe they were written by observers. In fact, as far as I can tell, neither paper even claims to be written by an observer. Also, I read half of one source and skimmed over the other. I can't find anywhere where they actually say that something in the report was wrong, or incorrect. It looks to me like much ado about nothing.

Observers of the dispute. Words mean things in context. If all you do is skim, then you aregoing to miss things.

http://www.discovery.org...

That's not the emails. That's the report. The emails were an appendix, which is not attached to that PDF of the report.

However, I changed the "1489" to "1490" on a whim, and that was the attachment. So woo for that.

The attachments are telling.

Pg. 10 begins the COOs response to his "requests" of them. Give it a read. It's interesting, particularly where he tried to ask them for money for, basically, no reason whatsoever. Considering the Smithsonian doesn't give grants, and he should know that, it seems almost like an attempt at extortion.

The report is clearly disingenuous when talking about how they thought of implying he should resign. It wasn't in the slightest for his research, it was for his use of the Smithsonian name and pretty explicitly so. Their complaints about his use of the Smithsonian name seem entirely legitimate to me. They say they'd like to either ask him to stop doing so, or imply he should resign, because they don't want him to use their name for the things he's putting out. That seems pretty reasonable to me, since using his association with the Smithsonian is against the rules of the program he's in.

Mr. Lemaitre definitely didn't care for him, but Coddington was willing to step up on his behalf (though, perhaps, with a bit of reluctance).

A few choice quotes, relating to the article publication, which, it was mentioned several times, did not and could not directly affect his position there:

"If there are repercussions for von Sternberg from the article, they should be because of his poor judgment in publishing it".

"The most important issue from the association's standpoint is the quality of the science presented in the Meyer article, rather than its implication for the promotion of the "intelligent design" creationist movement"

The fact that all RAs had to be treated equally was expressly noted, as was the fact that, due to a lack of oversight since his original sponsor croaked, he'd squeaked through with "special" privileges, like holding onto his master key and having a private office.

"It is clear that appropriate reviewers were not chosen...The editor should not be given a complete pass here, even if it were not obligatory for him to pass the article to the paleontologist among the Associate Editors."




"As managing editor it was my prerogative to choose the editor who would work directly on the paper, and as I was best qualified among the editors I chose myself."

In reality, he had already resigned, and this was his last issue to work on...and he chose to publish something without following proper ethical procedure.

What's an ethical rule he broke?

Do you not know how peer review works?

It's not "Whatever the editor agrees with", particularly if the editor already has a relationship with the submittor!

According to whom?

Now you're just trying to be contrary.

There is no one who has reviewed the process who thinks it was appropriate.


He continues to claim it was reviewed by people other than him...but won't name them, even though every other year all reviewers were identified.

Can you point me to somewhere that says every other year all reviewers are identified for all other papers?

I did already. Did you really not actually read the wikipedia article? I mean, yeah, it's wikipedia, but still...

It's really long. Where is it? You didn't read my paper, either, lol.

Which paper?

It's also mentioned in the attachment--unfortunately, I don't know the page number now offhand and I don't feel like hunting for it.

More interesting points from the appendix:

>I'm sending you this info just so you know that low profile doesn't mean
>inactive. On the other hand, his creationist views should not be the main
>focus of the criticism. First, if he can do good standard science, that's
>all we care about. Newton did pretty good science, and had some pretty
>nutty additional ideas about reality, too. So if he keeps the nut stuff out
>of his basically descriptive work, that's fine. His science should stand or
>fall on its own.

>
>In addition, attacking him for being a creationist is bad strategy. We do
>not wish to provide ammunition for the Dl crowd to claim that the
>"Darwinian Establishment" is out to ruin von Sternberg's career because he
>"strayed from the path of dogmatic Darwinism". That wouldn't help the
>cause at all. If there are repercussions for von Sternberg from the
>article, they should be because of his poor judgement in publishing it
>(your comments about editorial "fairness" are well taken). Therefore, this
>incident should be handled carefully, I believe.

Eugenie C. Scott