Salty Discussion Post-mortem

Scott, if you don't care then why are you going to ask around a bit? That is pure hypocricy. Now when you come back don't forget to dutifully report you findings like a good soldier. When you can't attack the message (and not a single solitary soul has) go after the messenger. Have a nice day! salty

quote:

---

I'll stick with a student of mine who said "He made me want to learn".

---

Wonderful! It's like those job references which say "If you get Miss X to work for you, you will be lucky." You can just imagine a student coming out of salty's lectures, shaking his head and saying "After an hour of that drivel, he made me want to learn."

quote:

---

The only difference between me and Mike Behe is that Lehigh tolerates dissent.

---

Well at least he's not comparing himself to Einstein any more. Of couorse he overlooks that Behe, whatever one may think of his work, is a tireless teacher, lecturer and author, who keeps up with current research, who does not brush off criticism with outdated appeals to authority, does not pad out his papers with an irrelevant mish-mash of snippets from Bartlett's Familiar Quotations, and who responds in detail to his critics. These differences alone would explain why he is actively in his post and salty is left in the corner, muttering into his glass about Darwinists.

quote:

---

Go for it M or Scott or whoever. UVM has denied that I exist. Try to find any reference to me. It is right out of George Orwell's 1984.

---

Like I said, I don't really care.

quote:

---

You are no better than they are, totally intolerant of anything that disagrees with your view of the world.

---

There is a difference between "intolerance" and responding to inflammatory rhetoric. I suggest you look into that.

quote:

---

The only difference between me and Mike Behe is that Lehigh tolerates dissent. UVM, like this forum does not.

---

Actually, the difference between you and Behe is that he wrote an entertaining book targeted at the lay public. You have some essays on a web site with out of date and largely debunked references.If this forum did not tolerate 'dissent', you would have been banned. That is what happens at the worm's - call creationism 'pseudoscience' and you are banned, call those that accept evolution not scinetists, mystics, etc., and all is fine.

quote:

---

Make your inquiries and do what you will with them. I'll stick with a student of mine who said "He made me want to learn". Most members of this forum don't have to learn as they already have all the answers.

---

You have nothing to teach any of us. You have not tried., You have, in fact, done the opposite.

quote:

---

Keep up the insults too. They add fuel to my antiDarwinian fire and provide proof of your persistent adherence to a fairy tale.

---

So is that why our insults are in response to yours? This odd proijection you exhibit... You did, afterall, boast about your role being to "inflame Darwinists." Wearing that as a badge of honor, I can only guess why you would then try to make a big deal out of getting the responses to try to get.

quote:

---

Who was that said "Animal are not struggling for existence - most of the time they are sitting around doing nothing at all". It reminds me of some of the members of this forum.

---

Yes. One retiree....

M There is no reason in the world for me to debate my points with you or anyone else. You say Dawkins supports some of his transparent foolishness. So have I. It is called publication. I have made it very easy for you or anyone else to see EXACTLY what my position is. If you refuse to read it, that is your defect not mine. Why do you insist on a double standard for me and Richard Dawkins. He has published his view of the world just as I have published mine. You just seem to prefer his version, based as it is on pure blind chance. The simple unvarnished truth is that you don't like my conclusions. I am not terribly happy about some of them myself. Publishing a paper is like having a baby. I will protect my baby to my death and neither you or anyone else will ever change that. Keep up the insults, I love it so! salty

You seem so dissatisfied with this board, perhaps you could recruit people from other boards where you've had some success to come here and help you make your case.--Percy

MP: Well at least he's not comparing himself to Einstein any more.M: LOL! I totally agree with your distinctions between salty and Behe. In addition, aside from Behe's creationist ID schtick, I have never heard his work in biochemistry denigrated and he has published in some notable peer reviewed journals.1. Puhl, H.L., Gudibande, S.R. & Behe, M.J. (1991) Poly[d(A T)] and other synthetic polydeoxynucleotides containing oligoadenosine tracts form nucleosomes easily. J. Mol. Biol. 222, 1149-1160.
2. Puhl, H.L. & Behe, M.J. (1995) Poly[dA] poly [dT] forms very stable nucleosomes at higher temperatures. J. Mol. Biol. 245, 559-567.
3. Mahloogi, H. & Behe, M.J. (1997) Oligoadenosine tracts favor nucleosome formation. Biochem. Biophys. Res. Comm. 235, 663-668.
4. Behe, M.J. (1998) Tracts of separated, alternating, and mixed adenosine and cytidine residues in the genomes of prokaryotes and eukaryotes. DNA Sequence, 8, 375-383.So in principle he knows how to work as a scientist though note that none of the science he has worked on professionally is evolutionary biological in nature (see also Medline). He does leave science at the door when he argues ID. But at least he argues it. He seems to be more than willing to engage his critics, listen to their evidence, and present what he considers evidence in response. I am certainly not a fan of Behe but he is leaps and bounds better at framing and arguing his position than salty...salty refuses to learn from us, maybe he could learn from someone he claims to be so similar to?

Scott it was never my original intention to "inflame Darwinists" but it sure has been the result. Every time I open my little mouth I get a barrage of insults from adherents to the "One True Faith" like yourself. I don't see how with your teaching load you have time for all this rhetoric. Why don't you invite your students in to share with them your view of the world? Or better yet invite your chairperson. I'll bet she would just love it. Mine never even bothered to read my papers. She didn't have to - as she apparently knew by instinct.
salty

quote:

---

You say Dawkins supports some of his transparent foolishness. So have I. It is called publication.

---

Actually, the point is that your publications do not support your conclusions, nor have you provided any expansion or clarification that might support them. You have indeed made your position clear - and you have also made clear that you have little or no objective evidence to support it.

quote:

---

Why do you insist on a double standard for me and Richard Dawkins.

---

Dawkins is not a participant on this board: there is no double standard. I for one would love to see him here. I'm sure I have said here in the past that I am not impressed by his work.

S: There is no reason in the world for me to debate my points with you or anyone elseM: That is a truly odd position to take for someone who clearly desires recognition and wishes to promote his viewpoint.S: I have made it very easy for you or anyone else to see EXACTLY what my position is. If you refuse to read it, that is your defect not mineM: I have read most of it, Quetzal all of it...you have ignored or insulted any questions we have asked of you regarding it....that is your defect not mine.S: Why do you insist on a double standard for me and Richard Dawkins. He has published his view of the world just as I have published mine. You just seem to prefer his version, based as it is on pure blind chance.M: Actually, I give a crap about Dawkins. I rely on primary literature in deriving my conclusions. But in any case, Dawkins regularly cites experimental or natural observations to support his claims...you don't and you refuse to.S:The simple unvarnished truth is that you don't like my conclusions. I am not terribly happy about some of them myself.M: The simple truth is you have yet to provide a single piece of evidence that would suggest why you have drawn your conclusions.S: publishing a paper is like having a baby. I will protect my baby to my death and neither you or anyone else will ever change thatM: I have published many myself. However, as a scientist, if someone points out that I am in error convincingly, then I do not defend it to the death. If they provide evidence that I am incorrect, I have to withdraw my conclusions...what you have described as your position is that of a dogmatic fundamentalist...not a scientist.[This message has been edited by Mammuthus, 03-28-2003]

Percy, I haven't had any success at any boards. THe only success I have had was to convince Terry to add OR BOTH? at his Forum. That wasn't easy but that is the only success I can enjoy except to have Engle include me in the dedication to "Far From Equilibrium". I guess I am a pretty pathetic creature don't you think? After all, the truth has always been determined by the majority hasn't it? Of course it has. salty

I don't know - do you ever have moments of self-doubt where you wonder if perhaps your critics have a point? Acknowledgement of one's own human fallibility can be a helpful touchstone. I think most scientists would acknowledge that science attempts to describe the universe, but that while attaining "truth" is the goal, it is an ideal we can never reach. For this reason all scientific theories must remain tentative. This makes the development of accepted scientific theories a consensus activity of those competent to render judgment. So while "truth" isn't determined by a majority vote, which theories are accepted certainly is.Do you feel you've arrived at a truth or a theory?--Percy

Mr. P You are a credit to the spirit of this forum. salty

Neither one. It is the Darwinians who have arrived at a theory. Why I will never understand. salty

quote:

---

John:
Scott, if you don't care then why are you going to ask around a bit? That is pure hypocricy. Now when you come back don't forget to dutifully report you findings like a good soldier. When you can't attack the message (and not a single solitary soul has) go after the messenger. Have a nice day!

---

Here is what I wrote, emphasis mine:

quote:

---

I am attending a meeting there next week, maybe I will ask around a bit.

---

This was in response to the queries of others. I may or may not care (I do not), but others have expressed curiosity. There is no hypocrisy there at all. But what is here is the typical unwarranted extrapolation that permeates your essays.The 'message' has, of course, been discussed. At least by those of us who found it wanting. You - the messenger- deigned not to discuss it, only to rely on hero worship, assertion, and pleas to be banned so that you can run back to the Worm's and cry about it.There does come a point at which the messenger deserves to be attacked. That is when the message is empty rhetoric yet the messenger continues to assert that it is unassailable.That occurred after about the 10th post or so in the original thread. I assume it happened long ago elsewhere.[This message has been edited by SLPx, 03-28-2003]

quote:

---

Scott it was never my original intention to "inflame Darwinists" but it sure has been the result.

---

I find that hard to believe. You have - on more than one occasion - boasted of doing just this. And I am far form the only one. However, you confuse cause and effect. You have not "inflamed" me with your science, for you have presented none, and none is evident in your online essays on the subject. You have inflmaed me with your hostile, insulting rhetoric, as should have been clear from my initial posts at the Worm's. of course, consideing the tone of that board, my disgust at your charcterizations was itself seen, ridiculously, as 'attacks' on you. Apparently, creationuts see righteous indignation as insulting.

quote:

---

Every time I open my little mouth I get a barrage of insults from adherents to the "One True Faith" like yourself.

---

Entirely false. You are received none too politley - or serioulsy - because what does come out of your "little mouth" (sic) is typically a series of blatant, unsupported assertions, aspersion casting, appeals to authority, etc.
And then, of course, we have your continual spamming such as above -
"...adherents to the "One True Faith" ...". I am no such thing, as are none of the folk I know on this forum. Projection of your own insecurities and psychoses is not an indictment of anyone but you.

quote:

---

I don't see how with your teaching load you have time for all this rhetoric.

---

I have a messy office. Plus, it doesn't take long to refute your empty claims.

quote:

---

Why don't you invite your students in to share with them your view of the world?

---

Now what are you blabbering about? When have I ever mentioned such a thing? Oh, I forgot - the creationist has the uncanny ability to read people's minds...

quote:

---

Or better yet invite your chairperson. I'll bet she would just love it. Mine never even bothered to read my papers. She didn't have to - as she apparently knew by instinct.

---

That they were crap?