Author
|
Topic: Praise for the RATE Group
|
John Paul
Inactive Member
|
|
Message 54 of 82 (104259)
04-30-2004 3:31 PM
|
Reply to: Message 51 by Percy 04-30-2004 3:23 PM
|
|
Re: Publishing in Science and Nature...
What does a scientific temperment resemble? I have met some pretty strange scientists in my life. And while your jumping on my back try Meert's. All he says is "JP is not a scientist" without anything to substantiate it. However you are correct and IF I were a biological scientist you would have a point (this being a biological debate with some re more scientific rad dating thrown in). The point being is my expertise is not used in these fields. Perhaps that is what you are referring to. However we all know that there are more scientific fields than those being bantered about on this board.
This message is a reply to: | | Message 51 by Percy, posted 04-30-2004 3:23 PM | | Percy has replied |
|
John Paul
Inactive Member
|
|
Message 57 of 82 (104276)
04-30-2004 4:06 PM
|
Reply to: Message 56 by Percy 04-30-2004 4:02 PM
|
|
Re: Publishing in Science and Nature...
I have asked for specifics and all I get is "your posts...". As if his posts make him out to be a scientist. Some might while most do not.
This message is a reply to: | | Message 56 by Percy, posted 04-30-2004 4:02 PM | | Percy has replied |
Replies to this message: | | Message 59 by Percy, posted 04-30-2004 4:40 PM | | John Paul has not replied |
|
John Paul
Inactive Member
|
|
Message 58 of 82 (104278)
04-30-2004 4:08 PM
|
Reply to: Message 55 by Joe Meert 04-30-2004 3:41 PM
|
|
Re: Publishing in Science and Nature...
Joe could you be more specific? All I can do is to think that just because I disagree with you is what makes you believe I am not a scientist. I am very positive if I were on your side you wouldn't say anything about me.
This message is a reply to: | | Message 55 by Joe Meert, posted 04-30-2004 3:41 PM | | Joe Meert has not replied |
|
John Paul
Inactive Member
|
|
Message 65 of 82 (104939)
05-03-2004 1:05 PM
|
Reply to: Message 61 by Joe Meert 04-30-2004 5:41 PM
|
|
Re: JP, let's start simple
JP, let's start simple -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- You said: What I do helps people of today and people of the future. JM: The implication of this was clear enough that my science does not and is of no practical use. John Paul: What YOU infer has nothing to do with what I said. I know some, maybe most, geologists use their knowledge for practical purposes. I never saidf nor implied otherwise. You however seem to be stuck in theoretical musings of what our planet looked like eons ago. Theoretical musings are fine & dandy but without verification have no practical use. This is why the theory of evolution, the common descent part, is very irrelevant to biology. Just so we are clear I was NOT addressing all geologists, just Meert.
This message is a reply to: | | Message 61 by Joe Meert, posted 04-30-2004 5:41 PM | | Joe Meert has not replied |
Replies to this message: | | Message 67 by MrHambre, posted 05-03-2004 1:23 PM | | John Paul has replied |
|
John Paul
Inactive Member
|
|
Message 66 of 82 (104940)
05-03-2004 1:10 PM
|
Reply to: Message 63 by Loudmouth 04-30-2004 5:53 PM
|
|
Re: Publishing in Science and Nature...
But what if someone actually analyzes(ed) ionized molecules for an IMS? There is quite a bit of research and analysis in my field. Most is on the leading edge, ie no one else has done it. Were the Wright brothers engineers or scientists? Was Tesla an engineer or a scientist? How about Edison or Bell? Now it is true that my paid profession is as an engineer. However that does not stop me from doing actual scientific research in areas in and out of my profession. That is a fact of life that no one can take away.
This message is a reply to: | | Message 63 by Loudmouth, posted 04-30-2004 5:53 PM | | Loudmouth has not replied |
|
John Paul
Inactive Member
|
|
Message 68 of 82 (104948)
05-03-2004 1:44 PM
|
Reply to: Message 67 by MrHambre 05-03-2004 1:23 PM
|
|
Re: That's what I call simple
MrHambre, It has already been shown that the theory of common descent is NOT needed for anything. IOW the theory that all of lifes' diversity owes its collective common ancestry to some unknown population of single-celled organisms that just happened to have the ability to self-replicate adds nothing in the way of knowledge nor is it used in any practical research venue. I have and still challenge any evolutionist to show us how the theory of evolution has added anything. Now I am not talking about change I am talking about life evolving from some population of single celled organisms. I have discussed this point with cetacean experts. They agree they can do their research without musings of whales evolving from some land mammal. The list is almost endless.
This message is a reply to: | | Message 67 by MrHambre, posted 05-03-2004 1:23 PM | | MrHambre has replied |
|
John Paul
Inactive Member
|
|
Message 72 of 82 (104977)
05-03-2004 3:45 PM
|
Reply to: Message 70 by mark24 05-03-2004 3:06 PM
|
|
Re: That's what I call simple
Mark24, Until it is verified I agree with your statement.
This message is a reply to: | | Message 70 by mark24, posted 05-03-2004 3:06 PM | | mark24 has not replied |
|
John Paul
Inactive Member
|
|
Message 73 of 82 (104979)
05-03-2004 3:47 PM
|
Reply to: Message 71 by Joe Meert 05-03-2004 3:16 PM
|
|
Re: Joe Meert
To Meert, All I can go on are your posts and your web pages. How was I wrong about geologists? YOUR inference was incorrect, as I have shown. As for attacks, LoL!!! That is ALL you do to me, Walt Brown and anyone else that disagrees with you.
This message is a reply to: | | Message 71 by Joe Meert, posted 05-03-2004 3:16 PM | | Joe Meert has replied |
Replies to this message: | | Message 77 by Joe Meert, posted 05-03-2004 4:37 PM | | John Paul has not replied |
|
John Paul
Inactive Member
|
|
Message 74 of 82 (104980)
05-03-2004 3:50 PM
|
Reply to: Message 69 by MrHambre 05-03-2004 2:35 PM
|
|
Re: That's what I call simple
MrHambre, as soon as you can present a case please do so. As I have stated I have issued this challenge before and am still waiting. What Watson & Crick testified to (if they did testify) and reality are two different things.
This message is a reply to: | | Message 69 by MrHambre, posted 05-03-2004 2:35 PM | | MrHambre has not replied |
|
John Paul
Inactive Member
|
|
Message 75 of 82 (104981)
05-03-2004 3:50 PM
|
Reply to: Message 69 by MrHambre 05-03-2004 2:35 PM
|
|
Re: That's what I call simple
MrHambre, as soon as you can present a case please do so. As I have stated I have issued this challenge before and am still waiting. What Watson & Crick testified to (if they did testify) and reality are two different things.
This message is a reply to: | | Message 69 by MrHambre, posted 05-03-2004 2:35 PM | | MrHambre has replied |
Replies to this message: | | Message 76 by MrHambre, posted 05-03-2004 4:26 PM | | John Paul has replied |
|
John Paul
Inactive Member
|
|
Message 82 of 82 (105156)
05-04-2004 8:31 AM
|
Reply to: Message 76 by MrHambre 05-03-2004 4:26 PM
|
|
John Paul actually says, quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- What Watson & Crick testified to (if they did testify) and reality are two different things. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- MrHambre: When you deliver your Nobel speech, you can give your view of reality. Then the joke will be on us. Right now we're the ones laughing. John Paul: That's it? That's your response? LoL!!! No I am the one laughing. Assertions, regardless if they are during Nobel speeches or not, are not evidence.
This message is a reply to: | | Message 76 by MrHambre, posted 05-03-2004 4:26 PM | | MrHambre has not replied |
|