"1,000 Scientists Sign Up to Dissent from Darwin"

[Subduction Zone]

That's awesome. What even is a "hydraulic resonance suppressor"?

Have you ever flown in a 747? Then you owe some thanks to Bill:

11 Coolest Things Bill Nye The Science Guy Has Ever Done - Geek.com

It does not even include being a super-hero.

 

[Prestor John]

But that is only based upon prejudice. You can't seem to base it on facts and evidence.

No, it is based on fact.

It is a fact that Bill Nye only has a degree in mechanical engineering.

No, even something that is true can be an attack. But you can't even seem to do that.

In post #113 you said, "Does that person follow the scientific method? If he does he could be said to be a scientist. Creationists on the other hand that work at various creationist sites have to swear not to use the scientific method."

To this I responded in post #159, "Wait...was that an "attack" just now? BY attacking creationists you are denigrating all scientists."

This was in reference to an earlier comment you made about my "attacking" Bill Nye somehow denigrated Creationists.

To my claim that you had "attacked" Creationists, you responded in post #163, "I hope this post is not indicative of your ability to reason logically. And no, my claim about creationist sources is easily proven."

You had argued that what you had said about Creationists had not been an "attack" because it could be "easily proven".

So my question to you now is, why is it not an "attack" for you, but it is an "attack" for me?

Is it because one is convenient for you while the other is not?

Bill Nye is not a scientist. That is not an "attack" and it is true.

No, what you call being "condescending" is bristling at that fact that your beliefs are easily shown to be wrong.

You claimed that the term "LDS scholar" (which I never used) was an "oxymoron".

You claimed that I said something I never did and then you commented on it in a very condescending way.

And rude, perhaps, but that is debatable.

No, it is plain for everyone to see.

 

[Prestor John]

Please pay attention. I said comparatively in regards to someone with a high school level of scientific literacy. In fact being an authority is often a matter of comparison. Can you provide examples that support your claims?

Here is a brief essay featured on the Boston University College of Engineering website titled, "Engineering Is Not Science", the first sentence reads,

"Engineers are not a sub-category of scientists."

Engineering Is Not Science | College of Engineering

Sure you did. I can quote you again.

Please do.

You were not fair and clear about him. You only tried to denigrate him. No one claimed that he was a scientist. Now you are trying to change the claims as well.

He is the one playing at being a scientist.

He is not a scientist. He is a mechanical engineer and TV personality.

I have been very fair and clear about him.

That is fine with me. I thought that you might want to correct your errors.

There is no reason for you to try new things.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No, it is based on fact.

It is a fact that Bill Nye only has a degree in mechanical engineering.

So what? Again that does not mean that one cannot be a valid spokesman for the sciences. If anything it shows that he is more qualified than most media 'authorities'.

In post #113 you said, "Does that person follow the scientific method? If he does he could be said to be a scientist. Creationists on the other hand that work at various creationist sites have to swear not to use the scientific method."

To this I responded in post #159, "Wait...was that an "attack" just now? BY attacking creationists you are denigrating all scientists."

Yes, and that was terribly illogical on your part. You see my claim was based upon the fact that creationist sites do require their workers to swear not to follow the scientific method.

This was in reference to an earlier comment you made about my "attacking" Bill Nye somehow denigrated Creationists.

To my claim that you had "attacked" Creationists, you responded in post #163, "I hope this post is not indicative of your ability to reason logically. And no, my claim about creationist sources is easily proven."

You had argued that what you had said about Creationists had not been an "attack" because it could be "easily proven".

Yes, it is easily proven. Didn't I offer to go over this if you asked politely?

So my question to you now is, why is it not an "attack" for you, but it is an "attack" for me?

One is based upon facts that I am willing to supply. The other was based upon prejudice that you have not been able to justify.

Is it because one is convenient for you while the other is not?

Bill Nye is not a scientist. That is not an "attack" and it is true.

You claimed that the term "LDS scholar" (which I never used) was an "oxymoron".

You claimed that I said something I never did and then you commented on it in a very condescending way.

No, it is plain for everyone to see.

And I admitted to my error in that claim. Your post still failed terribly. But since you won't apologize we won't deal with that for now.

Now would you like to know how creationist sites require their workers to swear to not use the scientific method?

 

[Prestor John]

Have you ever flown in a 747? Then you owe some thanks to Bill:

11 Coolest Things Bill Nye The Science Guy Has Ever Done - Geek.com

It does not even include being a super-hero.

Thank you, Bill.

I'll also take this opportunity to thank Henry Ford for revolutionizing car manufacturing.

Mr. Ford was also not a scientist.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Here is a brief essay featured on the Boston University College of Engineering website titled, "Engineering Is Not Science", the first sentence reads,

"Engineers are not a sub-category of scientists."

Engineering Is Not Science | College of Engineering

No one has claimed that engineering is science. Why do you think this helps you?

Please do.
He is the one playing at being a scientist.

He is not a scientist. He is a mechanical engineer and TV personality.

I have been very fair and clear about him.

There is no reason for you to try new things.

Now you are confused. The work of engineering is the practical application of science. But being an engineer does not mean that one cannot do science That is the same sort of error as claiming that a Christian cannot be a scientist. A claim that I have never made or even implied. And no, you have only displayed an unjustified hatred for the man. Is that because he makes some of your personal beliefs look ridiculous? Perhaps your anger is focused in the wrong direction.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Thank you, Bill.

I'll also take this opportunity to thank Henry Ford for revolutionizing car manufacturing.

Mr. Ford was also not a scientist.

I see that you are still having difficulty making a cogent point.

 

[Sapiens]

My God set laws in place that macroevolution seems to defy, including chirality, thermodynamics and entropy, etc.

How did Jehovah overcome thermodynamics and chirality?

Evidence please.

Here you go: A New Thermodynamics Theory of the Origin of Life | Quanta Magazine

Weird. I don't know anything about the Discovery Institute.

Is that the start of a long list?

I will tell you, as soon as you explain how mechanistic abiogenesis did the same!

Asked and answered: A New Thermodynamics Theory of the Origin of Life | Quanta Magazine

 

[tas8831]

Bill Nye is not a scientist.

Do you feel the same about engineers or medical doctors that write books about evolutionary biology?

 

[tas8831]

Here you go: A New Thermodynamics Theory of the Origin of Life | Quanta Magazine

Is that the start of a long list?
Asked and answered: A New Thermodynamics Theory of the Origin of Life | Quanta Magazine

Woo hoo!

Yahweh = plain old physics!

 

[Prestor John]

Is that the start of a long list?

I'm just like everyone else.

I only know what I know and I don't know what I don't know.

I will not, however, allow what I don't know to make me doubt what I do know.

 

[Prestor John]

Do you feel the same about engineers or medical doctors that write books about evolutionary biology?

Anyone can be a scientist. Even Bill Nye. If he received the proper scientific training, credentials and performed the research necessary to be considered one.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Anyone can be a scientist. Even Bill Nye. If he received the proper scientific training, credentials and performed the research necessary to be considered one.

Credentials are not a requirement, only doing the proper work.

 

[Sapiens]

I'm just like everyone else.

I only know what I know and I don't know what I don't know.

I will not, however, allow what I don't know to make me doubt what I do know.

That implies that you could not find your way out of a bag that was on fire at one end.

 

[Sapiens]

Anyone can be a scientist. Even Bill Nye. If he received the proper scientific training, credentials and performed the research necessary to be considered one.

It appears that there exist people who can not be scientists because they insist upon reaching their conclusion first then looking for the data. People who systematically reject any data that does not support their presupposition. Kinda like Trump and the Intelligence Community.

 

[Prestor John]

That implies that you could not find your way out of a bag that was on fire at one end.

How is that?

Do you somehow know what you don't know?

Are you going to allow what you don't know to make you doubt what you do know?

Are you claiming to know everything?

It appears that there exist people who can not be scientists because they insist upon reaching their conclusion first then looking for the data. People who systematically reject any data that does not support their presupposition. Kinda like Trump and the Intelligence Community.

Anyone can be a scientist.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

Anyone can be a scientist.

Anyone can be. That doesn't mean everyone IS. To be a scientist, you have to use the scientific method, which, by definition, means being willing to change beliefs in the face of new evidence.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Anyone can be. That doesn't mean everyone IS. To be a scientist, you have to use the scientific method, which, by definition, means being willing to change beliefs in the face of new evidence.

View attachment 27126

Hey!!! .Pratchett was not a scientist! He was right of course, but since he was not an officially sanctioned scientist we can ignore him,

Now let me get back to The Shepherd's Crown.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

That's awesome. What even is a "hydraulic resonance suppressor"?

They're used to lessen the vibrations caused by the fuel pumps on airplanes.

There are lots of inventors out there who are not scientists.

Bill Nye is not a scientist.

That depends on how you're defining it. Personally, I don't mind considering engineers to be scientists, but if you prefer to consider only researchers scientists then he isn't one.

He sure does.

He really doesn't. He's a spokesperson.

Last year when he claimed to be attending the State of the Union address, he tweeted that his attendance should not be "seen as an acceptance of the recent attacks on science and the scientific community."

He definitely considers himself a representative of the scientific community.

Do you know the difference between an "authority" and a "representative"?

Yet he also advocates that those who deny mankind's influence on climate change are suffering from psychological delusions and should be imprisoned as war criminals.

That's not very entertaining.

So, a man has views you don't agree with.

And...?

 

[BilliardsBall]

Urey used mud? Interesting - can you show that he used mud?

And why do you bring up thermodynamics and chirality all the time? Did you read about those 'problems' on a YEC website recently?

In real life, the Miller-Urey experiments were set up to test Oparin's hypothesis about the reducing atmosphere. Pity that creationists decided a long time ago that their best bet was to misrepresent the goal of the experiments.

Urey came up with a soup, which some friends of mine call mud--you know, "from goo to you by way of the zoo". Are you saying Urey made great advancement toward our understanding abiogenesis? Where are we on abiogenesis, do you reckon? How did it happen, do you think?

Are you saying the fact that everything in the universe except biological evolution tends toward disorder and entropy is a "small" hurdle for science to overcome?

Are you saying the chirality problem is close to solution? What is your proposed solution?