Announcement

Collapse

Natural Science 301 Guidelines

This is an open forum area for all members for discussions on all issues of science and origins. This area will and does get volatile at times, but we ask that it be kept to a dull roar, and moderators will intervene to keep the peace if necessary. This means obvious trolling and flaming that becomes a problem will be dealt with, and you might find yourself in the doghouse.

As usual, Tweb rules apply. If you haven't read them now would be a good time.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Lawsuit because science is silenced

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #76
    Originally posted by Jorge View Post
    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.
    Just because you have no problems posting lies why do you think a professional scientist like Dr. Schweitzer would put forward such a lie too?

    Let's see your evidence she was forced to toe the party line or lose her grant. You don't have any such evidence because you made it up whole cloth.

    Jorgnocchio.

    Comment


    • #77
      Originally posted by Jorge View Post
      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
      So we know what Mary said. Why wasn't she persecuted?

      But you didn't address MY question. What did the dude in the OP say or publish that brought this terrible persecution upon his head?

      You didn't answer that

      Try again.

      K54

      P.S. BTW, humans ARE primates. Consult Linnaeus.

      Comment


      • #78
        Originally posted by Jorge View Post
        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
        Someone should make a Jorge icon of this: film-projector.jpg

        Comment


        • #79
          Originally posted by Jorge View Post
          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).
          There are many alternate positions Jorge. YEC is one of many that aren't supported by the evidence.

          Originally posted by Jorge View Post
          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
          An eight-year-old, when she finds money under her pillow the morning after she left a tooth there, also thinks that it is obvious that the Tooth Fairy was responsible.

          Schweitzer didn't conclude that UFOs were dropping off T rex so they could hunt them either (that idea has about as much evidence supporting it as does the YEC model). She didn't look at YEC explanations because they aren't supported by the data, the facts and the evidence -- not because she was afraid to.

          And didn't you just say that "there isn't a shred of explicit (Creationist) religion anywhere" in Armitage's paper? Does that therefore mean he was being a good little boy, doing what he was told and toeing the party line?

          So if both were merely reporting the facts, why did Schweitzer get a grant and Armitage get fired? Could Hurd's analysis have anything to do with it?
          A "permanent part time technician" was taking liberties that a faculty member would not have taken. ... It was the amount of equipment, staff time, and lab stockroom supplies that were used on the one hand, and the total lack of funding or authorization on the other. And, as this "research" is already published, there is no possible way that those costs can be recovered. Armitage potentially stole $thousands$ from the University, unless he paid out of pocket. (I'll take bets he didn't).

          That will get you fired pronto.

          Armitage just helped himself, and if he did it during hours he was paid, then he stole salary as well.

          I'm always still in trouble again

          "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
          "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
          "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

          Comment


          • #80
            Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
            A work so full of crap even Expelled ignored it.
            It took me a while to get back to this because I'm busy on other things. The above blind, fanatical, ignorant jab kept gnawing at me. I finally looked a bit into it and discovered that my "tingling spider-sense" was right on the money. Watch ...

            Speaking of J. Bergman's Slaughter of the Dissidents, R06 says, "A work so full of crap even Expelled ignored it."

            Okay, we all heard what R06 says. Next we learn that :

            "Expelled was given pre-release screenings for Florida and Missouri legislators in support of Academic Freedom bills in those states. Such bills, often viewed as attacks on the teaching of evolution, have been introduced in state legislatures in the United States since 2004, based on the claims by the Discovery Institute that teachers, students, and college professors face intimidation and retaliation when discussing scientific criticisms of evolution, and therefore require protection. The Florida screening, held in the IMAX Theater of the Challenger Learning Center of Tallahassee on March 12, 2008, was restricted to legislators, their spouses, and their legislative aides, with the press and public excluded."

            Finally, Volume 1, First Edition of Slaughter of the Dissidents was published in July 2008.

            Thus, Expelled "ignored it" for the obvious fact that IT (Bergman's book) DID NOT EXIST until after Expelled was completed and released.

            Tsk ... tsk ... tsk ... porky, porky, porky.

            That'll be fifty Hail Mary's plus half an hour in boiling oil for you, R06!

            Too easy ... too, too easy.

            Jorge

            Comment


            • #81
              Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
              There are many alternate positions Jorge. YEC is one of many that aren't supported by the evidence.


              An eight-year-old, when she finds money under her pillow the morning after she left a tooth there, also thinks that it is obvious that the Tooth Fairy was responsible.

              Schweitzer didn't conclude that UFOs were dropping off T rex so they could hunt them either (that idea has about as much evidence supporting it as does the YEC model). She didn't look at YEC explanations because they aren't supported by the data, the facts and the evidence -- not because she was afraid to.

              And didn't you just say that "there isn't a shred of explicit (Creationist) religion anywhere" in Armitage's paper? Does that therefore mean he was being a good little boy, doing what he was told and toeing the party line?

              So if both were merely reporting the facts, why did Schweitzer get a grant and Armitage get fired? Could Hurd's analysis have anything to do with it?
              A "permanent part time technician" was taking liberties that a faculty member would not have taken. ... It was the amount of equipment, staff time, and lab stockroom supplies that were used on the one hand, and the total lack of funding or authorization on the other. And, as this "research" is already published, there is no possible way that those costs can be recovered. Armitage potentially stole $thousands$ from the University, unless he paid out of pocket. (I'll take bets he didn't).

              That will get you fired pronto.

              Armitage just helped himself, and if he did it during hours he was paid, then he stole salary as well.
              WOW ... I mean, zowwweeee!

              Do you have no lower limit?

              Check out my last post (above) - you're gonna love it.

              Jorge

              Comment


              • #82
                Originally posted by Jorge View Post
                WOW ... I mean, zowwweeee!

                Do you have no lower limit?

                ....

                Jorge
                Jorge,

                Exactly was is your point in starting this thread?

                film-projector.jpg

                Comment


                • #83
                  Originally posted by Jorge View Post
                  It took me a while to get back to this because I'm busy on other things. The above blind, fanatical, ignorant jab kept gnawing at me. I finally looked a bit into it and discovered that my "tingling spider-sense" was right on the money. Watch ...

                  Speaking of J. Bergman's Slaughter of the Dissidents, R06 says, "A work so full of crap even Expelled ignored it."

                  Okay, we all heard what R06 says. Next we learn that :

                  "Expelled was given pre-release screenings for Florida and Missouri legislators in support of Academic Freedom bills in those states. Such bills, often viewed as attacks on the teaching of evolution, have been introduced in state legislatures in the United States since 2004, based on the claims by the Discovery Institute that teachers, students, and college professors face intimidation and retaliation when discussing scientific criticisms of evolution, and therefore require protection. The Florida screening, held in the IMAX Theater of the Challenger Learning Center of Tallahassee on March 12, 2008, was restricted to legislators, their spouses, and their legislative aides, with the press and public excluded."

                  Finally, Volume 1, First Edition of Slaughter of the Dissidents was published in July 2008.

                  Thus, Expelled "ignored it" for the obvious fact that IT (Bergman's book) DID NOT EXIST until after Expelled was completed and released.

                  Tsk ... tsk ... tsk ... porky, porky, porky.

                  That'll be fifty Hail Mary's plus half an hour in boiling oil for you, R06!

                  Too easy ... too, too easy.

                  Jorge
                  Jorge is correct (for once ). It would have been difficult for Expelled to take notice of a book which had not been released yet. The earliest reference I found to Bergman's book was an ICR book review from April 2008 (probably based on a pre-release copy).

                  But Bergman had written on such things earlier, especially on his own experience about three decades ago. I can't remember if Bergman was mentioned at all in Expelled?
                  "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." – Albert Einstein

                  Comment


                  • #84
                    Originally posted by Jorge View Post
                    It took me a while to get back to this because I'm busy on other things. The above blind, fanatical, ignorant jab kept gnawing at me. I finally looked a bit into it and discovered that my "tingling spider-sense" was right on the money. Watch ...

                    Speaking of J. Bergman's Slaughter of the Dissidents, R06 says, "A work so full of crap even Expelled ignored it."

                    Okay, we all heard what R06 says. Next we learn that :

                    "Expelled was given pre-release screenings for Florida and Missouri legislators in support of Academic Freedom bills in those states. Such bills, often viewed as attacks on the teaching of evolution, have been introduced in state legislatures in the United States since 2004, based on the claims by the Discovery Institute that teachers, students, and college professors face intimidation and retaliation when discussing scientific criticisms of evolution, and therefore require protection. The Florida screening, held in the IMAX Theater of the Challenger Learning Center of Tallahassee on March 12, 2008, was restricted to legislators, their spouses, and their legislative aides, with the press and public excluded."

                    Finally, Volume 1, First Edition of Slaughter of the Dissidents was published in July 2008.

                    Thus, Expelled "ignored it" for the obvious fact that IT (Bergman's book) DID NOT EXIST until after Expelled was completed and released.

                    Tsk ... tsk ... tsk ... porky, porky, porky.

                    That'll be fifty Hail Mary's plus half an hour in boiling oil for you, R06!

                    Too easy ... too, too easy.

                    Jorge
                    I retract my statement since it appears that Slaughter of the Dissidents was released at the same time Expelled was released and therefore not available when they were making the latter. I coulda sworn that SoD came out the year before.

                    I'm always still in trouble again

                    "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
                    "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
                    "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

                    Comment


                    • #85
                      Originally posted by Kbertsche View Post
                      Jorge is correct (for once).
                      "For once"??? You just can't get anything right concerning me, can you?

                      It would have been difficult for Expelled to take notice of a book which had not been released yet. The earliest reference I found to Bergman's book was an ICR book review from April 2008 (probably based on a pre-release copy).
                      You surely must be better at English than I am (English is a second language to me) so how can you make such a silly mistake as the one I've highlighted above? The correct word is IMPOSSIBLE, not "difficult", unless, of course, you wish to introduce extrasensory perception.


                      But Bergman had written on such things earlier, especially on his own experience about three decades ago. I can't remember if Bergman was mentioned at all in Expelled?
                      R06's porky stands exposed regardless.

                      Jorge

                      Comment


                      • #86
                        Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
                        I retract my statement since it appears that Slaughter of the Dissidents was released at the same time Expelled was released and therefore not available when they were making the latter. I coulda sworn that SoD came out the year before.
                        In this specific instance, you have earned my respect. Now keep it up!

                        EDITED TO ADD: J. Bergman is nearing completion on his Volumes 2 and 3 of Slaughter of the Dissidents in which many, many (I don't know the number) more cases of intellectual censorship, persecutions, dismissals, etc ... etc. are presented. The evidence for these kinds of things is overwhelming (an understatement) which is why the refusal of 'certain' people to accept it as fact can ONLY be one of two things: ignorance of said evidence or rank dishonesty.

                        Jorge
                        Last edited by Jorge; 08-14-2014, 08:39 AM.

                        Comment


                        • #87
                          Ok, you got your thrill for the day. Even a broken clock is right twice a day.

                          Now, defend your claim that this permanent part-time technician was fired for a religious agenda.

                          I haven't seen evidence of that.

                          BTW, your pie-hole ventilation is NOT evidence.

                          K54

                          Comment


                          • #88
                            Originally posted by klaus54 View Post
                            Ok, you got your thrill for the day. Even a broken clock is right twice a day.
                            Yeah, as per rabidly dishonest vermin that would be the only reason why I was right.


                            Now, defend your claim that this permanent part-time technician was fired for a religious agenda.

                            I haven't seen evidence of that.

                            BTW, your pie-hole ventilation is NOT evidence.

                            K54
                            I do not have to "defend" anything to dishonest individuals - people that unless they're handed pictures/videos/sworn statements will not accept anything that goes against their personal agenda. You are one such person, Santa Klaus.

                            Heck, such people would even find a way to deny the pictures, videos and sworn statements -- they'd say things like, "These are fraudulent pictures/videos done with Photoshop and the sworn statement was coerced" or something like that. No one can be forced to be honest.

                            That's why it's so important to be honest, Santa Klaus. Before long no one will be speaking with you any more and you'll have to seek another website where no one knows you. Then you can torture the people there until you are found out. Wash, rinse, repeat ...

                            By the way, the "evidence" you request is by inference. I asked you before, do you have first-hand details? I do not. What I do have is plenty of experience following these sorts of events and I've learned that smoke in these cases indicates fire 99.99% of the time. That satisfies me (for now) until I gather evidence to the contrary. Needless to say, this will not satisfy you - nor would the aforementioned pictures/videos and sworn statements - your agenda comes first.

                            Jorge

                            Comment


                            • #89
                              Originally posted by Jorge View Post
                              Yeah, as per rabidly dishonest vermin that would be the only reason why I was right.




                              I do not have to "defend" anything to dishonest individuals - people that unless they're handed pictures/videos/sworn statements will not accept anything that goes against their personal agenda. You are one such person, Santa Klaus.

                              Heck, such people would even find a way to deny the pictures, videos and sworn statements -- they'd say things like, "These are fraudulent pictures/videos done with Photoshop and the sworn statement was coerced" or something like that. No one can be forced to be honest.

                              That's why it's so important to be honest, Santa Klaus. Before long no one will be speaking with you any more and you'll have to seek another website where no one knows you. Then you can torture the people there until you are found out. Wash, rinse, repeat ...

                              By the way, the "evidence" you request is by inference. I asked you before, do you have first-hand details? I do not. What I do have is plenty of experience following these sorts of events and I've learned that smoke in these cases indicates fire 99.99% of the time. That satisfies me (for now) until I gather evidence to the contrary. Needless to say, this will not satisfy you - nor would the aforementioned pictures/videos and sworn statements - your agenda comes first.

                              Jorge
                              All those words, and still no answer.

                              Show us the facts. Was the permanent part-time technician fired for attempting to to forward a religious agenda?

                              If yes, then give some details. Perhaps show us where Gary Hurd's analysis was flawed.

                              If no, then halt's Maul.

                              It's as simple as that.

                              K54

                              Comment

                              Related Threads

                              Collapse

                              Topics Statistics Last Post
                              Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-18-2024, 12:15 PM
                              48 responses
                              135 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post Sparko
                              by Sparko
                               
                              Started by Sparko, 03-07-2024, 08:52 AM
                              16 responses
                              74 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post shunyadragon  
                              Started by rogue06, 02-28-2024, 11:06 AM
                              6 responses
                              47 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post shunyadragon  
                              Working...
                              X