Lawsuit because science is silenced

[rogue06]

OF COURSE he was aware, you resurrected Dodo Birds!

So we're in agreement

[Kbertsche]

Given Jorge's instinctive and intuitive reaction, I agree with klaus54 that the purpose was to forward their new careers as martyrs vilified by intolerant science in the name of their god. As with Coppedge and Gonzales. No creationist can ever be fired (or denied tenure) for any reason other than religious intolerance, since clearly there ARE no merits involved.

I don't remember the details of Coppedge's case. But I don't think that Gonzales (or Dembski) were trying to be "martyrs". Rather, I think they were just a bit naive about academic politics.

[phank]

I don't remember the details of Coppedge's case. But I don't think that Gonzales (or Dembski) were trying to be "martyrs". Rather, I think they were just a bit naive about academic politics.

Maybe so, but that's how the creationist propaganda machine positioned it for public consumption. On the merits, Gonzales clearly did not qualify for tenure. He didn't have any students getting doctorates, he didn't have any original research, he didn't solicit any grants or funding for the university, his papers consisted only of a few follow-ons from his previous position, he was never lead investigator on anything. Most professors at his rank are denied tenure anyway, and most of THEM have a better track record than Gonzales. But the creationist PR machine mentioned NONE of this, and made loud noises about how his religious faith suffered persecution at the hands of the godless establishment.

Even so, Gonzales has a better case than Coppedge or Armitage. Gonzales wasn't doing any of the things that earn tenure, but he wasn't actively violating the rules and disrupting the workplace as the others were. I do know that Gonzales was advised, in increasingly unambiguous terms, that if he didn't start producing he'd be dumped. He was given the requirements for tenure, and clearly understood what they were. I can think of several words to describe someone who simply ignores such explicit warnings, but "naive" isn't one of them.

[Jorge]

So you won't admit that the OP indicated a purely religious agenda instead of scientific one as you claimed in the title.

Why would I "admit" to something that isn't true? I read Armitage's paper - there isn't a shred of explicit (Creationist) religion anywhere in that paper. What specimens like his employer and yourself hate are the patently-obvious conclusions that the scientific findings imply. Those conclusions have religious implications against the current Materialistic establishment and as such must be suppressed/censored. That is your primary mission and that of your ideological pals.

I have long stated that certain topics involving natural science cannot avoid entering into religious/philosophical realms. Origins science, in particular, is up to its neck in religious ties and implications. But why am I writing all of this? I may as well be addressing a crate of turnips.

Are you willing to admit that the "martyr complex" is a propaganda strategy of anti-evolutionists?

K54

You and your ideological comrades are predictably going to put the 'spin' on anything that is reported so as to advance your own agenda - that much is absolutely certain. You do that here, in this thread. Such actions are childishly transparent.

Jorge

[klaus54]

Why would I "admit" to something that isn't true? I read Armitage's paper - there isn't a shred of explicit (Creationist) religion anywhere in that paper. What specimens like his employer and yourself hate are the patently-obvious conclusions that the scientific findings imply. Those conclusions have religious implications against the current Materialistic establishment and as such must be suppressed/censored. That is your primary mission and that of your ideological pals.

I have long stated that certain topics involving natural science cannot avoid entering into religious/philosophical realms. Origins science, in particular, is up to its neck in religious ties and implications. But why am I writing all of this? I may as well be addressing a crate of turnips.




You and your ideological comrades are predictably going to put the 'spin' on anything that is reported so as to advance your own agenda - that much is absolutely certain. You do that here, in this thread. Such actions are childishly transparent.

Jorge

Then why did he get fired?

Please be precise.

K54

[rogue06]

Why would I "admit" to something that isn't true? I read Armitage's paper - there isn't a shred of explicit (Creationist) religion anywhere in that paper. What specimens like his employer and yourself hate are the patently-obvious conclusions that the scientific findings imply.

But aren't those the same "conclusions that the scientific findings imply" that Mary Schweitzer and her team has found years before? And she received a large grant to continue her research so it is a strain on all credibility to claim that the "conclusions that the scientific findings imply" had anything whatsoever to do with his dismissal.

[klaus54]

...

You and your ideological comrades are predictably going to put the 'spin' on anything that is reported so as to advance your own agenda - that much is absolutely certain. You do that here, in this thread. Such actions are childishly transparent.
Jorge

film-projector.jpg

[Jorge]

Then why did he get fired?

Please be precise.

K54

To be "precise" would require that I be in possession of ALL of the details in this case. I do not - do you? One thing is for certain, incidents like this are very, very common. And you know what they say, where there's smoke, there's fire. J. Bergman wrote a book (Slaughter of the Dissidents) examining over 300 cases (fully documented - about 1,000 references including court documents). He is presently working on volumes 2 and 3. I would call that a raging fire - but then, I'm "just a Creationist with an agenda".

Now, unless you're prepared to advance, with a defense, the outrageously idiotic thesis that EVERY SINGLE ONE of these cases is "a Creationist seeking martyrdom" or a "universal Creationist agenda", then you'd better concede the point and move on with your tail between your legs.

Jorge

[rogue06]

To be "precise" would require that I be in possession of ALL of the details in this case. I do not - do you? One thing is for certain, incidents like this are very, very common. And you know what they say, where there's smoke, there's fire. J. Bergman wrote a book (Slaughter of the Dissidents) examining over 300 cases (fully documented - about 1,000 references including court documents). He is presently working on volumes 2 and 3. I would call that a raging fire - but then, I'm "just a Creationist with an agenda".

Now, unless you're prepared to advance, with a defense, the outrageously idiotic thesis that EVERY SINGLE ONE of these cases is "a Creationist seeking martyrdom" or a "universal Creationist agenda", then you'd better concede the point and move on with your tail between your legs.

Jorge

A work so full of crap even Expelled ignored it.

[Jorge]

But aren't those the same "conclusions that the scientific findings imply" that Mary Schweitzer and her team has found years before? And she received a large grant to continue her research so it is a strain on all credibility to claim that the "conclusions that the scientific findings imply" had anything whatsoever to do with his dismissal.

Don't be so freaking naive, will you? OR ...
Don't be so freaking intellectually dishonest.

Mary got a "large grant" and got to keep her job because she was a good little girl that played along with the Establishment, she did and said as she was told, she toed the Party Line, she continued to promote the reigning paradigm and she suppressed all views and conclusions that even hinted at advancing the alternate position (Biblical Creationism).

TO WIT: did Mary even mention - just mention - what should be obvious to an 8-year-old, namely, "Hey, maybe this stuff isn't as old as we think it is?" Nope - had she done that her carcass would have been tossed out into the gutter and by now she would be wearing the label of "pseudo-scientist".

In short, don't even try to slip this intellectual con job by me.

Jorge

[klaus54]

To be "precise" would require that I be in possession of ALL of the details in this case. I do not - do you? One thing is for certain, incidents like this are very, very common. And you know what they say, where there's smoke, there's fire. J. Bergman wrote a book (Slaughter of the Dissidents) examining over 300 cases (fully documented - about 1,000 references including court documents). He is presently working on volumes 2 and 3. I would call that a raging fire - but then, I'm "just a Creationist with an agenda".

Now, unless you're prepared to advance, with a defense, the outrageously idiotic thesis that EVERY SINGLE ONE of these cases is "a Creationist seeking martyrdom" or a "universal Creationist agenda", then you'd better concede the point and move on with your tail between your legs.

Jorge

So you don't know.

Got it.

Anyone else here know the reason for his firing?

K54

[HMS_Beagle]

Don't be so freaking naive, will you? OR ...
Don't be so freaking intellectually dishonest.

Mary got a "large grant" and got to keep her job because she was a good little girl that played along with the Establishment, she did and said as she was told, she toed the Party Line, she continued to promote the reigning paradigm and she suppressed all views and conclusions that even hinted at advancing the alternate position (Biblical Creationism).

TO WIT: did Mary even mention - just mention - what should be obvious to an 8-year-old, namely, "Hey, maybe this stuff isn't as old as we think it is?" Nope - had she done that her carcass would have been tossed out into the gutter and by now she would be wearing the label of "pseudo-scientist".

In short, don't even try to slip this intellectual con job by me.

Jorge

I get a mental picture of Jorge's nose growing inch by inch with every word of this complete fabrication he typed.



Jorgnocchio.

[Jorge]

A work so full of crap even Expelled ignored it.

I'm presently working on writing up the reasons why non-Biblical Creationists are soooooo intellectually dishonest. It basically starts off with the fact that anyone willing to distort the Scriptures -- which, of course, is God's Truth -- no longer feels compelled to serve Truth but, instead, will serve whatever "truth" they have chosen to believe. God delivers them over to their vain delusions and it's all downhill after that.

So, I take it then that you've read Bergman's book and have masterfully
refuted the 300+ cases along with the nearly 1,000 pieces of evidence.

Wow ... congrats!

NOT !!!

Jorge

[Jorge]

I get a mental picture of Jorge's nose growing inch by inch with every word of this complete fabrication he typed.



Jorgnocchio.

Okay, Beagle Boy Blowhard - post right here for all to see Mary's "obvious-to-an-8-year-old" logical and scientific published hypothesis that "these results suggest the possibility that this material may be substantially less than millions of years old" -- or any other statement along those lines.

Go on, Beagle Boy ... we are all waiting.

I am predicting that Beagle Boy will Evolve into a primate before posting the evidence.
[Not a typo : for Beagle Boy, a primate would constitute an Evolutionary advance!] Bwahahaha

Jorge

[Jorge]

So you don't know.

Got it.

Anyone else here know the reason for his firing?

K54

As I have stated before, you are an intellectually dishonest critter unworthy of ANY replies. I'm sorry that I had forgotten just how dishonest you are. I now stand reminded. Bug off, vermin.

Jorge