Roger Ebert, Defender of Evolution

Apr 4, 2013 | Posted by: roboblogger | Full story: The Panda's Thumb

As we reflect upon the amazing body of work left behind by this giant of the movie scene, readers of the Thumb should know that Roger Ebert was a passionate defender of science, and of evolution in particular.

Comments
341 - 360 of 479 Comments Last updated May 14, 2013
Level 6

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#344
May 5, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Chimney1 wrote:
Nothing Sanford ever had legitimately published had anything to do with discrediting evolution.
I didn't say that it did. How in the world did you arrive at that conclusion?

My point was that John Sanford's 30 patents and over 80 published scientific papers in peer-reviewed journals is irrefutable evidence that Dr. Sanford is an accomplished scientist and that he knows from actual experience the hard work necessary to make an actual contribution to scientific progress. That's a big contrast with the religious bigots on this forum that condemn him for merely not accepting their most cherished religiously based axioms.
Level 6

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#345
May 5, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Chimney1 wrote:
Even a good mind can bark up the wrong tree,
Good minds deserve a good refutation. Where's the good refutation of the many respectable dissident scientists that are challenging the HIV/AIDS hypothesis? everythingimportant.org/AZT/
Level 6

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#346
May 5, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Chimney1 wrote:
Even a good mind can bark up the wrong tree,
Where's the good refutation of Sanford's axioms?
http://everythingimportant.org/genome.pdf

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#347
May 5, 2013
 
Shubee wrote:
<quoted text>No, I'm better because I exalt everything important ( everythingimportant.org ), not the shit that Roger Ebert loved to swim in.

What is important to a flawed mind is not important.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#348
May 5, 2013
 
Shubee wrote:
<quoted text> I didn't say that it did. How in the world did you arrive at that conclusion?
My point was that John Sanford's 30 patents and over 80 published scientific papers in peer-reviewed journals is irrefutable evidence that Dr. Sanford is an accomplished scientist and that he knows from actual experience the hard work necessary to make an actual contribution to scientific progress. That's a big contrast with the religious bigots on this forum that condemn him for merely not accepting their most cherished religiously based axioms.

No one here has questioned that Sanford was once a reputable scientist.

He has made significant contribution to the field of evolution.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#349
May 5, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

Shubee wrote:
<quoted text>Good minds deserve a good refutation. Where's the good refutation of the many respectable dissident scientists that are challenging the HIV/AIDS hypothesis? everythingimportant.org/AZT/

This is a lie. HIV/AIDs is not a hypothesis.

Only the crankest of cranks assert otherwise.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#350
May 5, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

Shubee wrote:
<quoted text> Where's the good refutation of Sanford's axioms?
http://everythingimportant.org/genome.pdf

Why are you asking this again?

How many times do we need to post the links?

They are simply wrong.

Remember: Sanford it the only scientist to have a hypothesis refuted in print before the hypothesis appeared in print.

That is a record that may never be challenged.

You can rant about flat earth theory being the up and coming thing all you want.




“I have upset the hand of god”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

Threats pending

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#351
May 6, 2013
 
Shubee wrote:
<quoted text> I didn't say that it did. How in the world did you arrive at that conclusion?
My point was that John Sanford's 30 patents and over 80 published scientific papers in peer-reviewed journals is irrefutable evidence that Dr. Sanford is an accomplished scientist and that he knows from actual experience the hard work necessary to make an actual contribution to scientific progress. That's a big contrast with the religious bigots on this forum that condemn him for merely not accepting their most cherished religiously based axioms.
It also shows that he isn't stupid enough to publish his ID garbage in peer reviewed journals or that number would be far less.

I wouldn't have called you a religious bigot, but now that you have brought it up, I agree it fits you.

I like the hypocrisy though. You support scientists that have a proven track record except for all the scientists with proven track records that disagree with Stanford's ID garbage.

“I have upset the hand of god”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

Threats pending

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#352
May 6, 2013
 
Shubee wrote:
<quoted text> Where's the good refutation of Sanford's axioms?
http://everythingimportant.org/genome.pdf
Posted so often that you probably no them by heart, but refuse to acknowledge this for fear your entire belief system will crash and you will have to go back to pick up sticks as a hobby.
Level 6

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#353
May 6, 2013
 
DanFromSmithville wrote:
You support scientists that have a proven track record except for all the scientists with proven track records that disagree with Stanford's ID garbage.
No, I support accomplished scientists that are independent. There is no question that I reject all scientists that receive money in exchange for their kowtowing to religious images.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#354
May 6, 2013
 
Shubee wrote:
<quoted text> No, I support accomplished scientists that are independent. There is no question that I reject all scientists that receive money in exchange for their kowtowing to religious images.
Oops, you have that backwards again Shoob.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Dubai, UAE

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#355
May 6, 2013
 
Shubee wrote:
<quoted text> Where's the good refutation of Sanford's axioms?
http://everythingimportant.org/genome.pdf
I am tired of posting them repeatedly, Mr Shubee, Defender of Utter Nonsense.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Dubai, UAE

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#356
May 6, 2013
 
Shubee wrote:
<quoted text> I didn't say that it did. How in the world did you arrive at that conclusion?
My point was that John Sanford's 30 patents and over 80 published scientific papers in peer-reviewed journals is irrefutable evidence that Dr. Sanford is an accomplished scientist and that he knows from actual experience the hard work necessary to make an actual contribution to scientific progress. That's a big contrast with the religious bigots on this forum that condemn him for merely not accepting their most cherished religiously based axioms.
My point is that you attempt to use his valid work (which never provided any basis for a refutation of evolution), with his later impotent doddery.

The Sun Also rises does not make Death in the Afternoon a good book.

The Principia Mathematica does not make the transmutation of lead into gold any more valid.

And Sanford's early work does not justify his error laden propaganda piece either. The manifesto is proclaimed in the preface, and from there its just quote mining and misrepresentation of other scientists all the way. Pitched not to his peers, who would laugh in his face, but to the lay audience that he thought he could persuade with arguments they would never question.

Imagine, you, a self proclaimed elitist, siding with the lowest populist appeal to the uninformed. Shame on you Shubee.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Dubai, UAE

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#357
May 7, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Shubee wrote:
<quoted text> No, I support accomplished scientists that are independent. There is no question that I reject all scientists that receive money in exchange for their kowtowing to religious images.
And they are independent if they...happen to agree with YOU.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Dubai, UAE

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#358
May 7, 2013
 
Shubee wrote:
<quoted text>Good minds deserve a good refutation. Where's the good refutation of the many respectable dissident scientists that are challenging the HIV/AIDS hypothesis? everythingimportant.org/AZT/
I have not got into this debate. I did read Kary Mullis autobiography many years ago. Seems to me that the HIV hypothesis was plausibly deniable 15 years ago...but time has marched on and all the new evidence supports it. You might accuse them of jumping to a conclusion prematurely...but that does not mean the conclusion was wrong!

Unless you can provide real evidence that the hypothesis is wrong in the face of all evidence that its right, perhaps you should let that one go.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#359
May 7, 2013
 
Shubee wrote:
<quoted text> No, I support accomplished scientists that are independent. There is no question that I reject all scientists that receive money in exchange for their kowtowing to religious images.

So ID is out of the question.

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#360
May 7, 2013
 
Shubee wrote:
<quoted text> Where's the good refutation of Sanford's axioms?
http://everythingimportant.org/genome.pdf
http://letterstocreationists.wordpress.com/st...

JOHN SANFORDíS GENETIC ENTROPY AND THE MYSTERY OF THE GENOME

The errors in Genetic Entropy [24]are so pervasive that it might take a whole new book to fully expose them [93]. Iíll break it down to the topics listed below:

(1) Kimuraís Distribution of Mutations

(2) Evidence for Beneficial Mutations

(3) Gene Duplication

(4) Natural Selection: What Sanford Claims

(5) Natural Selection: What Studies Show

(6) Evidence for Genomic Deterioration

(7) Synergistic Epistasis and Other Theoretical Considerations

(8) Genetic Entropy and the Mystery of John Sanford

<<topics above expanded in depth hereafter>>

Go for it, Shoob.
Level 6

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#361
May 7, 2013
 
Chimney1 wrote:
I am tired of posting them repeatedly, Mr Shubee, Defender of Utter Nonsense.
This is the first time that I have ever requested a refutation of Sanford's axioms. I don't even believe that you know what Sanford's axioms are. It's true however that you have spent a lot of time chasing your own tail.
Level 6

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#362
May 7, 2013
 
Kong_ wrote:
http://letterstocreationists.wordpress.com/st...
JOHN SANFORDíS GENETIC ENTROPY AND THE MYSTERY OF THE GENOME
The errors in Genetic Entropy [24]are so pervasive that it might take a whole new book to fully expose them [93].
I only count five essential axioms in Sanford's book. And I don't even believe that you can name them, much less talk about them intelligently.
Level 6

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#363
May 7, 2013
 
Chimney1 wrote:
Unless you can provide real evidence that the hypothesis is wrong in the face of all evidence that its right, perhaps you should let that one go.
You shouldn't talk before even listening to what the dissident scientists are saying about the HIV/AIDS hypothesis. Their expert claims are all nicely assembled here: everythingimportant.org/AZT/

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

•••
•••