Roger Ebert, Defender of Evolution

There are 20 comments on the Apr 4, 2013, The Panda's Thumb story titled Roger Ebert, Defender of Evolution. In it, The Panda's Thumb reports that:

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.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at The Panda's Thumb.

Shubee

Richardson, TX

#446 May 11, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
It could be the case.
It is the case. And this thread is full of religious bigots that are on a holy crusade for their party line.
Shubee

Richardson, TX

#447 May 11, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
It could be the case. On the other hand, the "HIV Church" has one thing going for it that scritpural dogmatists never have. New data, emerging every year, that can either confirm or falsify the HIV hypothesis.
Their holy doctrine has already been falsified. However, the real issue is that they aren't even listening to science. That's why you never see anyone from the "holy order" wanting to debate Duesberg. Think about that. There are plenty of debates against creationists but none against informed dissidents like Duesberg. Why is that?

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#448 May 11, 2013
Shubee wrote:
<quoted text> Yes, the HIV/AIDS hypothesis doesn't have to be dogma but it still is dogma. It hasn't been resolved.

Sorry, but incorrect. Even cursory reading of the actual scientific research leaves zero doubt.

Level 6

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#449 May 11, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
You church dogmatists, on the other hand, are playing with the same deck as you were since the Council of Nicea and all you can do is argue on interpretation with no new information to clarify the debate.
That's not true in my case. I believe in progressive revelation and have had visions and other revelations that clarify the debate on important issues.

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

#450 May 11, 2013
Shubee wrote:
<quoted text>That's not true in my case. I believe in progressive revelation and have had visions and other revelations that clarify the debate on important issues.
I believe your statement above confirms the answers to many more questions for us than it ever did answer for you.
Level 6

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#451 May 11, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
You cannot fit this phenomenon neatly within either the "wave" or the "particle" box. Therefore the old dispute is resolved by a new synthesis of the two previous concepts...and saying light IS a "particle" OR IS a "wave" is an outmoded way of looking at the question if you are referring to the classical version of these terms.
Yes, there are many book that espouse that kind of muddled thinking but the definitive answer is stated correctly by Feynman in The Feynman Lectures on Physics, Vol. 3.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#452 May 11, 2013
Shubee wrote:
<quoted text> The church of HIV=AIDS=DEATH are obviously no different than the worst scriptural dogmatists of history.

Ignorant mythology

http://pathmicro.med.sc.edu/lecture/hiv13a.ht...

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#453 May 11, 2013
Shubee wrote:
<quoted text> It is the case. And this thread is full of religious bigots that are on a holy crusade for their party line.

We have asked you to stop....

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#454 May 11, 2013
Shubee wrote:
<quoted text>Their holy doctrine has already been falsified. However, the real issue is that they aren't even listening to science. That's why you never see anyone from the "holy order" wanting to debate Duesberg. Think about that. There are plenty of debates against creationists but none against informed dissidents like Duesberg. Why is that?

Duesberg is refuted by the research.

If HIV did not cause AIDS then anti-HIV drugs would not be effective in preventing AIDS, but they are.

Early testing of HIV vaccines have been shown to be effective in preventing HIV.

Further, here is what real science says about Duesberg.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19619953


He is a legitimate cancer researcher, however. In spite of his AIDs ideas being refuted by quality research.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19619953

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#455 May 11, 2013
Shubee wrote:
<quoted text>That's not true in my case. I believe in progressive revelation and have had visions and other revelations that clarify the debate on important issues.

You need medication for your delusions and hallucinations.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#456 May 11, 2013
Kong_ wrote:
<quoted text>
I believe your statement above confirms the answers to many more questions for us than it ever did answer for you.

Again, more evidence we are dealing with yet another person that is in need of psychiatric help. We seem to be up to our armpits with them on topics. I honestly believe people with delusional disorders are attracted to these types of forums like flies. How many have we seen that are just like Shubee?

KAB, Infinite Force, Jimbo, Marksman (maybe.... clearly marksman is nuts, but I am not 100% certain that he has Delusional Disorder), Professor X, whats her name.... the Ausie chick(?) to name only a few.

KAB is just a smarter and slightly less delusional version of Shubee.

Anyhoot. Plenty of nut cases.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#457 May 11, 2013
Shubee wrote:
<quoted text>Yes, there are many book that espouse that kind of muddled thinking but the definitive answer is stated correctly by Feynman in The Feynman Lectures on Physics, Vol. 3.

QED explains the paradox but does not disagree with with the paradox, QED!

Light is a wave because particles themselves behave as waves.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#458 May 12, 2013
Shubee wrote:
<quoted text>Yes, there are many book that espouse that kind of muddled thinking but the definitive answer is stated correctly by Feynman in The Feynman Lectures on Physics, Vol. 3.
Sorry, but a "definitive answer" cannot be claimed when even today there is discussion on the matter. Light behaves in ways consistent with both classical particles and classical waves. Your question was "is light a particle?" and my answer remains, not in the classical sense but as a phenomenon light shares characteristics that in the classical world appear only in the mutually exclusive phenomena of particles and waves.

That answer is sufficient, and honest, reflecting our level of understanding. "Definitive" answers sometimes only exist in mathematics Shubee. When are you going to get a clue about empiricism?

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#459 May 12, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
Again, more evidence we are dealing with yet another person that is in need of psychiatric help. We seem to be up to our armpits with them on topics. I honestly believe people with delusional disorders are attracted to these types of forums like flies. How many have we seen that are just like Shubee?
KAB, Infinite Force, Jimbo, Marksman (maybe.... clearly marksman is nuts, but I am not 100% certain that he has Delusional Disorder), Professor X, whats her name.... the Ausie chick(?) to name only a few.
KAB is just a smarter and slightly less delusional version of Shubee.
Anyhoot. Plenty of nut cases.
We are dealing with deniers of evolution, geology, cosmology, physics, after all. And the unifying feature of most of them is a desperate need to deny modern discovery in order to maintain primitive myths for one reason only - they think it might enable them to escape from their own mortality.

Wouldn't you expect a lot of nutters? Especially the egomaniacal types who cannot conceive that the universe was not put there as a test to THEM, and that the universe might just continue on its way utterly indifferent to their insignificance, once they've kicked the bucket. Utterly, totally indifferent.
Level 6

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#460 May 12, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
Your question was "is light a particle?" and my answer remains, not in the classical sense
I think that you're having a problem understanding words. Perhaps this will help you. It's a dictionary definition of a particle:

par·ti·cle
noun
1. a minute portion, piece, fragment, or amount; a tiny or very small bit

By contrast, here's a dictionary definition of a wave:

wave
noun
1. a disturbance on the surface of a liquid body, as the sea or a lake, in the form of a moving ridge or swell.
2. any surging or progressing movement or part resembling a wave of the sea

Source: http://dictionary.reference.com/
Level 6

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#461 May 12, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
Light behaves in ways consistent with both classical particles and classical waves.
No. Light behaves in many ways consistent with both classical particles and classical waves. So it's easy to be fooled.

“Maccullochella macquariensis”

Since: May 08

Melbourne, Australia

#462 May 12, 2013
Shubee wrote:
<quoted text>No. Light behaves in many ways consistent with both classical particles and classical waves. So it's easy to be fooled.
There's only one fool here, and that would be one Eugene Schubert.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Indianapolis, IN

#463 May 12, 2013
Shubee wrote:
<quoted text>No. Light behaves in many ways consistent with both classical particles and classical waves. So it's easy to be fooled.
WTF?

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#464 May 12, 2013
Shubee wrote:
<quoted text> I think that you're having a problem understanding words. Perhaps this will help you. It's a dictionary definition of a particle:
par·ti·cle
noun
1. a minute portion, piece, fragment, or amount; a tiny or very small bit
By contrast, here's a dictionary definition of a wave:
wave
noun
1. a disturbance on the surface of a liquid body, as the sea or a lake, in the form of a moving ridge or swell.
2. any surging or progressing movement or part resembling a wave of the sea
Source: http://dictionary.reference.com/

GIGO

Light is a wavical.
http://web.wt.net/~lgsims/wavical.htm

“Don't be mad at me.”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

I'm just a little bunny.

#465 May 12, 2013
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
WTF?
I think what Shubee Doo is trying to say is that he is a complete moron.

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
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 13 min Zog Has-fallen 18,667
News Darwin on the rocks (Sep '14) 15 min Dogen 1,325
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 50 min Dogen 160,715
god is not real!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (Jun '06) 6 hr Ooogah Boogah 13,668
News Should evolution be taught in high school? (Feb '08) 8 hr hpcaban 178,585
News It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) Thu Dogen 141,273
Guadeloupe Woman Found (1812 (Mar '10) Thu MikeF 73
More from around the web