Roger Ebert, Defender of Evolution

Apr 4, 2013 Full story: The Panda's Thumb 479

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.

Full Story
Level 6

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#344 May 5, 2013
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

#345 May 5, 2013
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

#346 May 5, 2013
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

#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

#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

#349 May 5, 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/

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

#350 May 5, 2013
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.




“The strength of science is”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

founded in facts.

#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.

“The strength of science is”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

founded in facts.

#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

#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

#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

#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

#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

#357 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.
And they are independent if they...happen to agree with YOU.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Dubai, UAE

#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

#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

#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

#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

#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

#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:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form 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.

Evolution Debate Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 2 min KAB 139,637
Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 6 min SobieskiSavedEurope 128,005
Should evolution be taught in high school? (Feb '08) 3 hr SoE 175,489
An atheistic view on evolution vs. a godly view... 4 hr TurkanaBoy 105
god is not real!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (Jun '06) Thu Ooogah Boogah 13,578
Ten Reason Why Evolution Is a Lie (Jul '09) Nov 26 MikeF 1,902
More Theories to Disprove Creation Nov 26 The Dude 64

Evolution Debate People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE