0
   

500 PHD-level scientists who refuse to buy into evo-loserism

 
 
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Tue 28 Feb, 2006 07:11 am
RaceDriver205 wrote:
My god, i just read that intelligent falling article.
Their insane, they are absolutely mind-bogglingly INSANE.


Well, I agree. The are insane to a degree, but not quite to that degree...

The Intelligent Falling article is a parody, courtesy of The Onion, a beloved satyrical web site.

There's another good satyrical site out there called Landover Baptist. Loads of fun Smile
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Tue 28 Feb, 2006 07:48 am
parados wrote:
I love the "scientific" disciplines of some of the signers.

So do I. It reminds me of an episode during the 1964 presidential campaign. A publication called Fact magazine printed a special edition about the psychological condition of Barry Goldwater, the Republican candidate for president. At the heart of the special issue was a poll of 12576 psychiatrists, to which 2417 responded. The poll found that Goldwater had a severely paranoid personality and was psychologically unfit to be president. (FindLaw link here.)

There was just one problem: None of the psychiatrist polled had ever examined Goldwater.

The whole thing was a sham of course. When Goldwater sued, the federal district court rightfully imposed punitive damages on Fact magazine, the appeals court rightfully upheld the decision, and the Supreme Court rightfully rejected a rehearing of the case. But as bogus as Fact magazine's case against Goldwater was, the Discovery Institute's case against evolution is barely better. It rests on a poll of 500 scientists, over two thirds of which aren't even biologists. Among the minority of respondents who are biologists, the number of evolutionary biologists is greater than zero, but evidently so low that Discovery chose not to reveal it in their press release. That makes their case a little bit less of a sham than Fact magazine's infamous Goldwater special -- but just barely.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Tue 28 Feb, 2006 08:24 am
Thomas wrote-

Quote:
the Discovery Institute's case against evolution is barely better.


Which only goes to show that the Discovery Institute's case,as presented by Thomas,is "barely better". Which is an assertion anyway.

The quote says nothing about THE case against evolution.

What does seem to have evolved is the expectation,similar in essence to the Fact magazine expectation,that one can discredit a case by pointing to a weakness in one of its proponents and relying on one's audience being weak in the head.

I think it might be more useful to make the case for evolution as an intellectual discipline suitable for teaching in classrooms rather than bothering about such things as the Discovery Institute which could possibly have a hidden agenda to discredit the opposition to evolution by narrowing the discussion into unwinnable areas of debate which is what seems to have happened in Dover Pa.
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Tue 28 Feb, 2006 08:32 am
spendius wrote:
What does seem to have evolved is the expectation,similar in essence to the Fact magazine expectation,that one can discredit a case by pointing to a weakness in one of its proponents and relying on one's audience being weak in the head.

I take it we agree, then, that the subject gungasake chose to start this thread about is a weak case against evolution?
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Tue 28 Feb, 2006 08:46 am
Yes.Actually it's no case at all.

Its residual effect is pro evolution and pro atheism.
0 Replies
 
raprap
 
  1  
Reply Tue 28 Feb, 2006 09:13 am
I vaguely remember the psychiatrists' poll. I was 13 at the time and my nearest 13 year old neighbor at the time was at odds about the election. I proudly plastered my bicycle with AuH2O and he with LBJ---at that time Barry Goldwater's campaign used a slogan "In your heart you know he's right" and the Johnson people countered with the poll and the retort "In your Guts you know he's nuts."

1964 was a notable for two other reasons--it was the last National presidential campaign and it was one of the first to recognize propaganda as 30 second bites--notably with the 'Daisy Commercial.' This was the same model used effectively in the infamous "Willie Horton" and Dukakis driving the tank campaign commercials of the 80's GOP.

As for Gunge's DI poll post--not only is it a meaningless poll--it isn't even new to Gunge--it's a repeat of an earlier poll post (I believe it was April, 2005) on the science and math forum... the conclusion at that time was pretty much the same.

Rap
0 Replies
 
gungasnake
 
  1  
Reply Wed 1 Mar, 2006 02:40 pm
Thomas wrote:

At the heart of the special issue was a poll of 12576 psychiatrists, to which 2417 responded. The poll found that Goldwater had a severely paranoid personality and was psychologically unfit to be president. .



That being the case he needed to run as a democrat. I mean, first you've got Slick KKKlintler, a certifiable psychopath, and then Al Gore, and now this gigolo/shyster combo.

The only way the dems could improve on that 04 ticket would be to run Benedict Arnold and Judas Iscariat and, unfortunately for the dems, both of those suckers are dead.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Wed 1 Mar, 2006 02:52 pm
That's telling 'em gunga.I'd just been saying on another thread how much better IDers are at stylish writing than anti-IDers and you go proving me right in next to no time.

Thanks.
0 Replies
 
Chumly
 
  1  
Reply Wed 1 Mar, 2006 04:06 pm
More like politicized drivel under the impetus religionist rhetoric.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Wed 1 Mar, 2006 04:16 pm
Thanks Chum-confirmation already.Two in two.Your sentence there lacks the colour and rhythm gunga tossed off.It's cliched.Probably been in the newspapers.Gunga rolls it out as if he just said it at the bar hardly without thinking.And it's quite funny.
0 Replies
 
Chumly
 
  1  
Reply Wed 1 Mar, 2006 05:28 pm
<goes into corner groveling and sniveling>
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Wed 1 Mar, 2006 06:03 pm
That where I started out from.
0 Replies
 
Chumly
 
  1  
Reply Wed 1 Mar, 2006 06:16 pm
Funny!
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Wed 1 Mar, 2006 06:19 pm
Quote:
Yet Arnold has gone down in history not as a hero but as a villain, a military traitor who, as commander of the American fort at West Point, New York, in 1780, schemed to hand it over to the British.


Listen gunga-for really stylish writing you wouldn't want to have Ben in the same chapter as Judas.You would be in clover by now following Ben's advice.
0 Replies
 
Dartagnan
 
  1  
Reply Thu 2 Mar, 2006 11:56 am
Gunga me wonder if he uses some sort of computer program to generate what he presents in these threads. All the nasty terms he uses for Democrats and scientists--it all looks canned. Not to mention the drivel about evolution and so forth. It smacks of alchemy.

Surely no one would spend his free time dreaming up such nonsense...
0 Replies
 
Chumly
 
  1  
Reply Thu 2 Mar, 2006 01:05 pm
It's a Turing Test!
0 Replies
 
Dartagnan
 
  1  
Reply Thu 2 Mar, 2006 02:24 pm
[Whoops, there is a typo in my penultimate post. I meant to begin: "Gunga makes me wonder..."]

Re the Turing test: I agree, Chumly. And I think Gunga flunks. It's a machine...
0 Replies
 
raprap
 
  1  
Reply Thu 2 Mar, 2006 02:25 pm
Too bad he doesn't know there were no Democrats in 1780--Arnold was a converted Tory--which would make him more likely a conservative as he apparently preferred George 3 to whatever was to come.

Rap
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Thu 2 Mar, 2006 03:28 pm
rap rappered-

Quote:
Too bad he doesn't know there were no Democrats in 1780--Arnold was a converted Tory--which would make him more likely a conservative as he apparently preferred George 3 to whatever was to come.


Just think though.You could have been subjects of our gracious Queen and playing cricket and our football instead of that baseball and your football.I bet you would be World No 1 in both by now if it hadn't been that you can't abide losing which some other countries put up with when they were beginners.So you invented your own games,which are too naff to export despite many efforts,and played with yourselves.
0 Replies
 
raprap
 
  1  
Reply Thu 2 Mar, 2006 09:28 pm
I still have a feeling that rounders would have evolved into a game you throw overhand. And our whole revolution could have been avoided if Mr. Pitt had given the colonies representation in the commons after the French and Indian War. But that's all water under the Atlantic---so to speak.

As for football, NFL or Association it still boils down to 'it ain't hockey'.


Rap
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Evolution 101 - Discussion by gungasnake
Typing Equations on a PC - Discussion by Brandon9000
The Future of Artificial Intelligence - Discussion by Brandon9000
The well known Mind vs Brain. - Discussion by crayon851
Scientists Offer Proof of 'Dark Matter' - Discussion by oralloy
Blue Saturn - Discussion by oralloy
Bald Eagle-DDT Myth Still Flying High - Discussion by gungasnake
DDT: A Weapon of Mass Survival - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 04/19/2021 at 09:05:22