Praise for the RATE Group

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. I dare say that anyone who has taken even an introductory course in geology would not have made such a silly insinuation. A geologist is standing behind nearly everything you touch on a daily basis from your toothpaste down to your shoes. While we might rightfully quibble about the pros and cons of fossil fuels, I think I can make a fair case for saying that they have been of benefit to society today and in the future. I don't know if the statement was made out of narrow-minded machismo or simply ignorance of what a geologist does, but given your constant assertion that you are a scientist, the statement does not support your alleged scientific literacy.CheersJoe Meert

And I am not looking down at engineers or other scientists who aren't involved in research. There are days when I wish I had gone into engineering, especially if things start to stagnate in the lab. Research that isn't going anywhere gets pretty frustratingJM: I tried to make this same point. I am not an engineer and it would not bother me if someone pointed this out. It pays well and produces a lot. JP reminds me a bit of George Costanza because being director of field operations was never good enough, he wanted to be thought of as anything but what he was (architect, marine biologist).CheersJoe Meert

quote:

---

I tried to make this same point. I am not an engineer and it would not bother me if someone pointed this out.

---

Exactly. Afterall, Darwin's only degree was in theology (not that they had science degrees back then anyway). What matters is the ability to support your hypotheses, regardless of your educational background. However, knowledge is a big help in interpreting data within the biological sciences (and geologic sciences as well).

The first sentence here is unrelated to the rest of the paragraph. Letters are not journal articles -- they're letters to the editor. I don't doubt that Science would be reluctant to publish creationist letters; their subject matter is science, and creationism is not currently part of science. They probably don't publish letters about literary criticism either. In order for creationism to become part of science, it has to start producing peer-reviewed articles. Humphreys claims that creationist articles are suppressed, but does he have any evidence? Nature published no articles between 1991 and 1993 with the phrases "cosmic microwave" and "compton scattering" in their abstracts. They published only two papers about the cosmic microwave background during the right time frame, and neither was about Compton scattering. And, of course, as others have pointed out, getting rejected by Nature without peer review is hardly unusual. (Or so I've been told.)

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.

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.

John Paul writes,

quote:

---

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.

---

I'd just like to know how many actual biologists would have to contradict this statement before you'd retract it.regards,
Esteban "Just Wondering" Hambre

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.

John Paul,I just wondered if someone who makes blanket statements such as It has already been shown that the theory of common descent is NOT needed for anything would accept some sort of evidence that would demonstrate, for example, that the theory of common descent actually was necessary or relevant to biology. If the answer is no, if you already know all you need concerning the history of biology, a simple 'no' would suffice.I'm not sure what you mean by 'cetacean experts,' though I fully expect that there are people who work with whales that can do their jobs without having to affirm the validity of molecules-to-man descent. In a similar vein, you can brew beer (and people did for millennia) without understanding the technical minutiae of the Sacchomyces existence and life cycle. However, if I made a blanket statement such as Pasteur's work has no practical importance to the brewing industry, I'd be wrong.It may come as a surprise to you to hear that Watson and Crick testified that the concept of common descent was of utmost importance in their search to discover the structure of the DNA molecule. I'm sure you'd agree that their research did not increase our knowledge of biology or heredity, nor did their achievements have any practical research value.regards,
Esteban Hambre

JP, You would no doubt agree that the Genesis account adds nothing to our knowledge, either?Mark

quote:

---

JP:Just so we are clear I was NOT addressing all geologists, just Meert.

---

JM: As I showed, you are wrong about geologists in general and me in particular. Want to try again? The problem is that you're so intent on attacking me as a person that you make silly statements about geology in general and that leads to minsinformation about me in particular. Once again, you show your ignorance about geology which is all the more reason to question your scientific reasoning abilities. Most scientists would recognize their own shortcomings rather than make silly statements such as the ones you repeat here.CheersJoe Meert

Mark24, Until it is verified I agree with your statement.

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.

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.

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.