Scientist and their Science - Infalliable ?

[LouisBooth]

" I mean all evidence points to evolution. "

Again, you're showing your bias, all the evidience DOES NOT point to evolution. that's the problem.

 

[lithium.]

Originally posted by LouisBooth
" I mean all evidence points to evolution. "

Again, you're showing your bias, all the evidience DOES NOT point to evolution. that's the problem.

If it doens't point to evolution what does it point to. HUH.

 

[TheBear]

"Well I'm currently researching how the alpha helix forms based on the R units added to the chain and the interactions of them. Do you think me being in research is not in the scientific community?"

LOL!!! That does not say much. Who are you doing this research for? Where is your grant money coming from? What degrees do you hold?

"Funny, I was thinking the same thing about you. You're very religious about evolution, and other issues that I've seen how you act make me thing you're very subborn even when you're wrong."

LOL!!! A 'scientist' reducing a scientific theory to religion. This is rich!

And, just stick with the facts, Louis. No need to inflate and flame by making false accusations. That would be flaming, (against forum rules).

 

[LouisBooth]

"LOL!!! That does not say much. Who are you doing this research for? Where is your grant money coming from? What degrees do you hold? "

Sorry bear, I'm not going to go into my personal life on here for you to ridicule me as you have done in the past, public and private. Sorry

"And, just stick with the facts, Louis. No need to inflate and flame by making false accusations. That would be flaming, (against forum rules). "

I'm not flaming at all, I'm stateing a fact and an opinion. You don't even present evidience for your side, but just seem satified to agree with the popular though of the time. YOu showed me that very clearly a long time ago and that's why we clashed.

 

[blader]

Sorry bear, I'm not going to go into my personal life on here for you to ridicule me as you have done in the past, public and private. Sorry

Legitimate scientific research is public, open, and transparent, and has nothing to do with your personal life... and as I suspect, with your life, period. Scientific credentials are the same.

Quackery, on the other hand, is the opposite.

If you really had a degree in anything research related, you would not hesitate to inform us of it.
Please stop making claims which you are not prepared to back up. You're insulting the hard work of Ph.D scientists everywhere by your charade. Thanks.

 

[TheBear]

"Sorry bear, I'm not going to go into my personal life on here for you to ridicule me as you have done in the past, public and private. Sorry "

That's a strong allegation, Louis. I don't ever recall ridiculing you. I apologize if you took anything I said as ridicule. It never was my intentions to do so.

My remark here simply went to your statement of being part of the scientific community. I just want to know your qualifications. That's all.

"I'm not flaming at all, I'm stateing a fact and an opinion. You don't even present evidience for your side, but just seem satified to agree with the popular though of the time. YOu showed me that very clearly a long time ago and that's why we clashed."

Louis, if you take the time to do a post search on "TheBear", you will find that I have provided tons of evidence, position statements from many educational and scientific institutes, and a slew of other material which supports the theory of evolution. I surely hope you are not making these statements as a personal attack on me.

Personal clash or not, as an administrator on this site, your conduct should reflect what this board stands for. This is not the place for personal attacks and cheap shots.

 

[LouisBooth]

"Legitimate scientific research is public, open, and transparent, and has nothing to do with your personal life... and as I suspect, with your life, period. Scientific credentials are the same. "

I just told you what I was doing.


"you would not hesitate to inform us of it. "

I totally disagree. I've seen how people who post here rip apart people they don't agree with, even if their education is not in question at all.


"You're insulting the hard work of Ph.D scientists everywhere by your charade. Thanks."

Ahh...biased from the start, thanks for proving my point.


"I don't ever recall ridiculing you."

You did so a few times. I have a record of the PM if you'd like to see it.


"I just want to know your qualifications"

LOL, no you don't you want to do what is done here on this forum, rip into people they don't agree with.


"I surely hope you are not making these statements as a personal attack on me."

Not at all, but I can see how you can mistakenly see so if you're being definsive for no reason.

"Personal clash or not, as an administrator on this site, your conduct should reflect what this board stands for. This is not the place for personal attacks and cheap shots."

As no longer being staff you should not lecture me on the rules thanks. I know them and I do abide by them. If you feel you are being personally attacked then you have misunderstood my post. Please go back and re-read them and I can point out your misunderstanding.

 

[blader]

Originally posted by LouisBooth

I just told you what I was doing.

So tell me more. Can you list some references to prior art done in this area of r-units and alpha helixes? What are they?

I totally disagree. I've seen how people who post here rip apart people they don't agree with, even if their education is not in question at all.

I don't see what showing credentials have to do with ripping apart arguments. How your credentials affect the quality of your arguments is beyond me. And how by not giving your credentials, your arguments won't be ripped apart is just way over my head.

However, claiming that you're doing research while failing to give any evidence thereof while spoofing your education and degree is something that deserves to be ripped apart.

Ahh...biased from the start, thanks for proving my point.

Uh. That makes no sense at all.

 

[TheBear]

Yes PM me with the alleged ridicule. I would love to see it, and get past the miscommunication.

"LOL, no you don't you want to do what is done here on this forum, rip into people they don't agree with."

Now you are a mind reader? That statement is unfounded, uncalled for and flaming.

Please, Louis! You are better than this.

 

[LouisBooth]

"That statement is unfounded, uncalled for and flaming.
"

its not flaming at all. I'm just stateing that is what is done on this forum.

 

[TheBear]

I give up.

You win, Louis.

 

[LouisBooth]

*sigh* bear, its not winning or loosing, it never was. That's probably part of the problem.

 

[lithium.]

Louis, you didn't answer my question if the evidence doesn't point to evolution what does it point to?

 

[LouisBooth]

"Louis, you didn't answer my question if the evidence doesn't point to evolution what does it point to?
"

I'm not sure, maybe a different theory all together, maybe a variation of evolution, maybe creationism. The point is that it doesn't point to evolution as it now stands.

 

[TheBear]

*sigh* What one considers as criticism, another may take as ridicule.

 

[lithium.]

Originally posted by LouisBooth
"Louis, you didn't answer my question if the evidence doesn't point to evolution what does it point to?
"

I'm not sure, maybe a different theory all together, maybe a variation of evolution, maybe creationism. The point is that it doesn't point to evolution as it now stands.

From what I have seen all the evidence does support and point to evolution.

On the other hand creation has no data/evidence to back it up.

 

[LouisBooth]

"From what I have seen all the evidence does support and point to evolution"

Then your misinformed. That's why its a theory.

"On the other hand creation has no data/evidence to back it up."

1. off topic
2. again I disagree

 

[lithium.]

Originally posted by LouisBooth
"From what I have seen all the evidence does support and point to evolution"

Then your misinformed. That's why its a theory.

"On the other hand creation has no data/evidence to back it up."

1. off topic
2. again I disagree

I have to stop here I guess everything I learned is wrong and I am wrong, and everything you know and learned is right.

Guess what everyone I guess I am wrong.

 

[LouisBooth]

"I have to stop here I guess everything I learned is wrong and I am wrong, and everything you know and learned is right.
"

1. strawman
2. I never said that at all
3. your knowledge should always be increasing, give it time. read more?

 

[TheBear]

Back on topic.

There is no such thing as scientific infallability. All aspects of science are constantly subject to scrutiny, review and revision, in the light of new evidence. Any scientist who claims infallability, is a quack scientist.