-
On 6/29/2006 10:52:00 AM, JanieBelle waxed damned near poetic whilst opining...
-
Testing the recent comments code.
-
On 6/30/2006 01:01:00 PM, JanieBelle waxed damned near poetic whilst opining...
-
Another test.
-
On 7/09/2006 05:14:00 AM, JanieBelle waxed damned near poetic whilst opining...
-
Hi.
K
-
On 7/12/2006 10:31:00 AM, waxed damned near poetic whilst opining...
-
This is a test of the word verification system. If this had been an actual emergency, you'd be dead. This is only a test.
JanieBelle
-
On 7/12/2006 10:32:00 AM, JanieBelle waxed damned near poetic whilst opining...
-
It appears to work.
-
On 7/12/2006 06:05:00 PM, JanieBelle waxed damned near poetic whilst opining...
-
Different Test
-
On 7/20/2006 02:11:00 AM, blipey waxed damned near poetic whilst opining...
-
That's funny! Comedic gold. One of those things that will always be funny. Damn.
I love things that will always be funny, like:
There are only two types of people in the world that I dislike. People who don't tolerate other people's cultures.
And the Dutch.
-Graham Chapman, Monty Python's Flying Circus
That'll always be funny.
-
On 7/20/2006 08:20:00 AM, JanieBelle waxed damned near poetic whilst opining...
-
The witch scene from "Holy Grail" is my fav.
Now THAT'S good science right there.
Her test up there of the word verification system cracked me up.
I'd heard the open minds thing before, but shehas a really good snarky kind of way of saying it.
I guess you'd just have to hear it live with the face and all.
-
On 7/20/2006 08:20:00 AM, JanieBelle waxed damned near poetic whilst opining...
-
Oh, that last comment was me.
Kate
-
On 7/23/2006 07:26:00 AM, JanieBelle waxed damned near poetic whilst opining...
-
test
-
On 7/27/2006 02:32:00 PM, JanieBelle waxed damned near poetic whilst opining...
-
This is a test of the emoticon code.
:)
;)
:D
-
On 7/27/2006 02:33:00 PM, JanieBelle waxed damned near poetic whilst opining...
-
Looks like it works in FF but not IE
-
On 7/30/2006 08:14:00 AM, blipey waxed damned near poetic whilst opining...
-
is there a pirate smilie?
-
On 7/30/2006 09:26:00 AM, JanieBelle waxed damned near poetic whilst opining...
-
There is now, check your email.
;pirate:
:blipey:
-
On 8/11/2006 02:42:00 PM, waxed damned near poetic whilst opining...
-
"Looks like it works in FF but not in IE"
Who cares if it doesn't work in IE.
FF rules!
-
On 8/11/2006 05:42:00 PM, JanieBelle waxed damned near poetic whilst opining...
-
You're right about that! I just recently picked up on Firefox.
I had no idea just how cool surfing the web could be.
-
On 11/04/2006 10:30:00 AM, JanieBelle waxed damned near poetic whilst opining...
-
I'm sticking this way back here because I don't want to give the game away, but I don't want to lose it, either. I don't know if the IDiots at UD will recognize her, and I don't want to be the cause of her bannination over there. What's funny is that I recognized the writer before I noticed the name attached. I really thought to myself, "wow, that's Kristine undercover." Then I read the name - as "Karley". It took me a sec to get K. Harley. UD does brain damage, what can I say?
Anyways, Kristine Rocks Big.
In response to this utter dishonesty from Sal...
"McGrew makes an apology, but Myers has not
by scordova on November 3rd, 2006 · 5 Comments
Yesterday I reported statements by Professor Tim McGrew, Chair of the Philosophy of Science Department at Western Michigan University. Here are some updates as more information has rolled in.
I posted excerpts and links to McGrew’s statements yesterday here at: More antics from PZ Myers?. My only major comment was, “you be the judge.”
In brief, PZ Myers was accused by McGrew of lying and fabricating quotes and attributing them to Jonathan Wells. It appears some of the accusations by McGrew were inaccurate, and McGrew has detailed the issues where he felt he was hasty in making judgments about PZ Myers:
My Denver Post Review of Two New Books on Darwinism and Intelligent Design
my original charge of outright fabrication was careless and arose from my reading of the text actually written by Wells rather than of the callouts written by some editor…I’ve apologized to PZ. But PZ needs to apologize to Wells.
–Tim McGrew
McGrew reports apologizing to Myers, but there is no report of Myers giving an apology or explanation to Wells even though I and others have presented evidence from PZ’s writings that PZ has misrepresented Wells.
Myers claims what Wells did regarding Ballard’s comments on the gastrula stage was to:
pretend it applies to the pharyngula stage
Myers has not responded to querries that he clarify that claim especially in light of the fact that it has been pointed out here and on his weblog that Wells used the word “gastrulation” three times in his book (and not pharyngulation or pharyngula) on pages 30-31 when referring to Ballard and other’s work.
Myers has provided no response to justify his claim Wells was pretending Ballard’s comments on gastrula stages were comments on pharyngula stages. Myers further uses this claim to argue that Jonathan Wells lied.
Myers has given no indication of giving a clarification, explanation, correction, retraction, or apology to his fellow scientist, Jonathan Wells.
However, if Myers does offer any apology, the commeters are invited to post it or links to it here.
(Have a nice weekend)
Filed Under: Intelligent Design "
Kharley471 says....
"16 responses so far ↓
*
1. Touchstone // Nov 4th 2006 at 12:05 am
I think it’s quite disingenuous to hide behind “You be the judge”. No one is confused or fooled as to why McGrews allegations received attention (albeit without diligence) here.
When allegations you broadcast or publicize end up being false witness, the right thing to do is be upfront about it: Whoops! Myers was right, we were wrong. I know that hurts for the folks here, but it’s the Moral Thing(tm).
Lawyering equivocations just make the blunder worse; it matters not if Myers *did* make spurious claims with regard to gastrula stages etc. True or no, it doesn’t change the fact that McGrew’s accusations, as offered, were baseless. The fact that the landscape can be scrounged for some other complaint against Myers doesn’t mitigate the original problem.
Speaking frankly and humbly about this will go much farther in building up the credibility of this blog than pointing to “unanswered queries” as your defence, or worse, hiding behind the skirt of “You be the judge.” McGrew did the right thing (mostly), and UD should, too.
-Touchstone
Comment by Touchstone — November 4, 2006 @ 12:05 am
*
2. pk4_paul // Nov 4th 2006 at 2:23 am
Touchstone, fair enough but do you intend to ask PZ to do the same about his attribution of pretense with respect to the application of the gastrula stage? Noone is fooled either by PZ’s motives in ignoring the issue. The original problem entails PZ’s excesses against Wells about whom you devoted no attention. Does PZ get a pass on frankness and humility?
Comment by pk4_paul — November 4, 2006 @ 2:23 am
*
3. Jehu // Nov 4th 2006 at 5:27 am
Lawyering equivocations just make the blunder worse; it matters not if Myers *did* make spurious claims with regard to gastrula stages etc. True or no, it doesn’t change the fact that McGrew’s accusations, as offered, were baseless. The fact that the landscape can be scrounged for some other complaint against Myers doesn’t mitigate the original problem.
It is not a matter of scouring the landscape. The entire premise of PZ’s accusation against Wells was fabricated wholesale. PZ deliberately mischaracterized the context of Wells’ statement. PZ lied and said that Wells tried to claim the gastrula stage was the pharyngula stage. Wells made not such claim and gave full mention of the hourglasss theory, which even PZ admits is dubious.
To direct attention away from his lie, PZ makes up another false statement and claims Wells mischaracterized the content of Ballards 1976 paper, claiming that Ballard’s paper stresses the similarity of embryos across the subphyla. The statement from Ballard’s paper to which PZ refers is not a conclusion or finding of the paper, it is an aside or dicta. Therefore, PZ’s claim is pure nonsense. If you actually read the paper, as I have, you will see that the main point of the paper is a refutation of the idea that the cleavage, bastula, and gastrula stages are not conserved developmental stages, refuting Van Baer.
Thus, the energy of investigators and particularly students is diverted into the essentially fruitless 19th century activity of bending the facts of nature to support second-rate generalities of no predictive value. Though enthusiasm for Haeckel’s (1900) recapitulation ‘law’ died out, unfortunately the popularity of Von Baer’s ‘laws’ of 1828 was renewed. …
The plain fact is that evolutionary divergence has taken place at every stage in the life history, the earliest no less than the latest. To bolster the partial truths in Von Baer’s generalities by insisting that the eggs of vertebrates are more like one another than their ‘blastulas,’ the blastulas more like one another than their ‘gastrulas,’ and to homologize all theoretical ‘functional blastopores’ where ‘invagination’ is taking place would be running the risk of assuming what is not yet demonstrate - that the genetic physiologic, and cell-behavior processes going on are the same in time and nature.
The whole article is along these lines.
As for PZ’s little tiny snippet that he falsely claims represents the article. PZ is full of it. Here is the real context of PZ’s snippet.
from very different eggs the embryos of vertebrates pass through cleavage stages of very different appearance, and then through a period of morphogenetic movements showing patterns of migration and temporary structures unique to each class. All then arrive at a pharyngula stage, which is remarkably uniform thoughout the subphylum, consisting of similar organ rudiments similarly arranged (though in some respects deformed in respect to habitat and food supply). After the standardized pharyngula stage, the maturing of the structures of organs and tissues takes place on diverging lines, each line characteristic of the class and further diverging into lines characteristic of the orders, families, and so on.
This is exactly the “hourglass” that Wells describes, yet PZ claims that Wells mischaracterized Ballard. PZ is a liar.
It gets worse because Ballard goes on to say,
Von Baer’s generalities only apply to the second half of this, and even then there are many exceptions in the literature (De Beer 1958), limiting their predictive value. Before the pharyngula stage we can only say that embryos of different species within a single taxonomic class are more alike than their parents. Only by semantiv tricks and subjective selection of evidence can we claim that “gastrulas” of shark, salmon, frog, and bird are more alike than their adults.
How much does Ballard even believe that embryos are alike in the pharyngula stage? Here is what Ballard wrote in Comparative Anatomy and Embryology (1964, p. 69)
Some of these actual pharyngulas have a tailfin and some do not. Those which are tetrapods have lung buds, the fish pharyngulas lack them. They all have a liver, to mention an organ at random, but the livers of fishes, birds and mammals are interestingly different in detail even at the pharyngula stage. Arteries can be compared easily but there is little uniformity in the veins. Most conspicuously, the circumstances and needs for respiration, nutrition, and excretion at this stage have been met by a good many structures of a temporary nature, aptly referred to as scaffolding tissues, which are in bold contrast in the different classes of vertebrates.
So even at the pharyngula stage, the notion that there is a conserved stage is not accurate and has no predictive value.
PZ himself acknowledges this stating,
serious embryology (none of which seems to be done by “intelligent design” proponents) demonstrates that there is a significant amount of variation within the phylotypic period.
So in the end, even PZ admits that his opposition to Wells’ point is meaningless, sound and fury signifying nothing.
Don’t get lost in PZ’s rhetorical house of mirrors; PZ has no point, only distortion.
Comment by Jehu — November 4, 2006 @ 5:27 am
*
4. edwinhensley // Nov 4th 2006 at 8:07 am
There is no reason for Myers to apologize since he was accurate in everything he wrote. The book was written by Wells and had a quote in it attributed to Ballard that was either inaccurate or edited. McGrew had to apologize because his charge the Myers is a liar proved to be wrong. Since Myers is not a liar, he is telling the truth. Changing the words of a “quote” is obviously wrong. It is just as wrong to pull quotes out of context and change the meaning and intention of the original researcher and call that science.
Comment by edwinhensley — November 4, 2006 @ 8:07 am
*
5. tribune7 // Nov 4th 2006 at 8:52 am
it matters not if Myers *did* make spurious claims with regard to gastrula stages etc.
Why would it not matter?
Comment by tribune7 — November 4, 2006 @ 8:52 am
*
6. kharley471 // Nov 4th 2006 at 9:53 am
What is up with you, Sal?
You’re just digging yourself in deeper, and it’s embarrassing. Wells distorted that article and PZ called him on it. McGrew was hasty and got egg on his face. Anybody can see that.
Is this the “research” we’ve been promised over and over? “Evolution dead in 10 years,” huh, Bill D.?
I’ve seen women on the bus having fights over earrings that were more persuasive. You guys need to show me something good. You’re better than Dawkins at making atheists.
Comment by kharley471 — November 4, 2006 @ 9:53 am
*
7. Ben Z // Nov 4th 2006 at 10:04 am
All emotions and no argument. Don’t forget, we’re not allowed to respond to accusations that Well’s “lied out his teeth”. I’d stick with McGrew’s original statement that PZ did just that (just not literally, like he thought).
Comment by Ben Z — November 4, 2006 @ 10:04 am
*
8. bj // Nov 4th 2006 at 10:32 am
I agree with Touchstone. When your life becomes the culture war, you can develop an itchy trigger finger. Sometimes it’s better to hold your fire. I’m no fan of PZ Myers.
Comment by bj — November 4, 2006 @ 10:32 am
*
9. JasonTheGreek // Nov 4th 2006 at 10:33 am
I have a feeling kharley471 completely skipped over comment #2…or worse, read it and simply ignored it.
From what I can tell- PZ did, indeed, blunder on attacking Wells. I don’t see where Wells has distorted Ballard at all.
Comment by JasonTheGreek — November 4, 2006 @ 10:33 am
*
10. txpiper // Nov 4th 2006 at 11:16 am
Objectivity is not exactly the strong suit of PZ and/or other militants at Pharyngula. My latest post on the “Visit to Downe” blog, was picked off:
“Thank you for commenting.
Your comment has been received and held for approval by the blog owner”
I’m a great admirer of many prominent ID thinkers. But I have to think that their rationale is best going to be advanced, not in encounters with people like Myers, but rather by reasonable questions being posed by students in j-high and high school classrooms. Most kids won’t read technical blogs, or remember them if they do. But they will never forget seeing a biology teacher completely off-balance when simple but profound questions are posed which can’t be dismissed by standard evolutionary jargon.
Comment by txpiper — November 4, 2006 @ 11:16 am
*
11. kharley471 // Nov 4th 2006 at 12:25 pm
You have a feeling, Jason? “All emotions and no argument.”
So yes, Wells acknowledges the hourglass while shifting the word “earlier” like sand through it, speaking out of both sides of his mouth as always, and that’s not a distortion?
PZ tries to pin the guy down as to what he’s really saying, and Wells has squirm room as always, playing the “I didn’t say that” game until, once again, we see that he’s not really saying anything because he’s acknowledging the evidence that contradicts his view as supporting his view. Well, yes, I guess refuting this is a waste of time.
Nobel prizes in fifteen years for ID. I was promised.
Comment by kharley471 — November 4, 2006 @ 12:25 pm
*
12. Patrick // Nov 4th 2006 at 2:09 pm
^ I let kharley471’s comment through so everyone could see an example of the level of “reasoning” employed by ID opponents. The other comments I deleted were rants.
Comment by Patrick — November 4, 2006 @ 2:09 pm
*
13. Jehu // Nov 4th 2006 at 2:46 pm
kharley471 and edwinhensley
Are you two daft? Are you so completely hypnotized by PZ Myers that you cannot comprehend the facts?
edwinhensley, you wrote,
The book was written by Wells and had a quote in it attributed to Ballard that was either inaccurate or edited.
That is completely false. If you believe that you either have not been paying attention or you just believe the lies of PZ Myers wholesale.
kharley471, you said,
So yes, Wells acknowledges the hourglass while shifting the word “earlier” like sand through it, speaking out of both sides of his mouth as always, and that’s not a distortion?
No, it is not distortion. Even Ballard uses the word “early embryonic” to describe the egg, cleavage, blastula and gastrula phases. All of which Ballard argues are morphologically unique in the different taxa. Wells has accurately represented Ballard.
But neither of you seem to understand the science here at all, rather you appear to be gleeful echo chambers for the lies of PZ Myers.
Comment by Jehu — November 4, 2006 @ 2:46 pm
*
14. kharley471 // Nov 4th 2006 at 3:58 pm
Jehu, Ballard never contradicted ToE and you know that. Or are you going to tell me that Wells never argues against it now or misuses Ballard to do so? Wells is slippery and his books are slippery, and so are his definitions, deliberately so, precisely in order for you to be able to make the “argument” that you do. That is how the ID movement works. By the way, I could never get away with that Dadaist “citation” method in any scholarly journal or white paper, so don’t lecture me on science or methodology.
Sure, even Ballard could define “early” as anything before 3:00 p.m. and then say, “I’m an early riser” if he were to get up at 2:59 p.m. That would not be exactly a lie, but would it, with knowledge of the full implication of what “early riser” means to people, be the truth? Context is all. Ballard made himself clear at what points “early” meant at each stage that he discussed. Wells is deliberately vague for a general unschooled audience.
Come on. You know better. And if you knew me you would soon see that I cannot be hypnotized by anyone, not even by someone I admire.
Comment by kharley471 — November 4, 2006 @ 3:58 pm
*
15. Jehu // Nov 4th 2006 at 4:29 pm
kharley471, your wrote
Ballard never contradicted ToE and you know that. Or are you going to tell me that Wells never argues against it now or misuses Ballard to do so?
Unbelievable. Is that the depth of your analysis? Ballard believed in ToE and Wells doesn’t, therefore, Wells must be misusing Ballard? That is the level of your understanding?
Well, the answer is no. Wells uses Ballard as support for the fact that the early embryonic stages of vertebrate development are not similar. A fact that Ballard clearly supports. So Wells does not misuse Ballard.
I could never get away with that Dadaist “citation” method in any scholarly journal or white paper, so don’t lecture me on science or methodology.
So what? This is a blog not a journal. My citations are easy enough to find if you want to. I don’t see any evidence that you understand the science being discussed here or have bothered to read Ballard’s paper.
Ballard made himself clear at what points “early” meant at each stage that he discussed. Wells is deliberately vague for a general unschooled audience.
What? Again, you obviously haven’t got a clue of the science being discussed here and haven’t read Ballard’s paper. Ballard does not explain what “early” means at each stage. Ballard maintains that all of the early embryonic stages of the different classes of chordates are distinct and cannot be compressed into a single account. Wells is exactly right in his use of Ballard and that is why PZ Myers is a liar.
Comment by Jehu — November 4, 2006 @ 4:29 pm
*
16. kharley471 // Nov 4th 2006 at 5:52 pm
*Sigh.*
Well, I see the way the games works, at least. You are deliberately misunderstanding me, although I think that you know quite well what I’ve said. But as Bill O’Reilly likes to say about his realm, UD never apologizes (an appropriate quip in this context).
First of all, I was referring to Well’s “citation,” not yours.
“This is a blog not a journal.” It sure isn’t a scholarly journal, we agree on that. But therefore, not being one, I don’t know how anyone can say with a straight face this blog is an authoritative resource on science.
“I don’t see any evidence that you understand the science being discussed here or have bothered to read Ballard’s paper.” I have read it. You are toying with me. Well, go toy with an amateur.
“Ballard does not explain what ‘early’ means at each stage.” Now, that is just stupid. You know perfectly well that Ballard made it clear to which stage he referred when discussing development at each point in his article. This is just childish.
Sayonara.
Comment by kharley471 — November 4, 2006 @ 5:52 pm
"
Updated to add the entire thread as of 6PM. Gotta love Kristine.
-
On 11/04/2006 07:14:00 PM, Kristine waxed damned near poetic whilst opining...
-
Oh thank you, my friend.
May I say that I'm exhausted? Grad school (maintaining a 4.0 average), full time employment, blogging, and that doesn't run me down, but this emotional blackmail! 4 posts and I'm wiped.
They can't ban me, I quit! I haven't thought about this for a long time (because it hasn't happened for a long time), but it's like fighting with your mother when you've just turned nineteen and she's all anxious and being controlling and picking apart little asides just to trip you up on some niggling non-point so she can win at any cost.
Eventually you just walk out on her (because you can!).
Bleaah.
-
On 11/04/2006 08:19:00 PM, JanieBelle waxed damned near poetic whilst opining...
-
Some more fun at the funhouse...
"#
#
17. JasonTheGreek // Nov 4th 2006 at 6:28 pm
I don’t think Wells is “anti-evolution”, and I surely don’t think he was trying to say that Ballard was anti-evolution in any sense. He was speaking on a specific issue.
Myers used the quote from the box, claiming Wells was distorting the issue, but Wells quoted Ballard and full a few pages before this. Maybe Myers refused to read the book, but only read a few selected sections of it? That’s laziness at best.
What Wells said fits. He didn’t distort Ballard, and the quote was in 2 places- the first quote was full and didn’t distort Ballard’s view as far as I can tell.
I’m not sure why anyone needs to apologize. Sal quoted what someone else said and asked for discussion. Suddenly someone here needs to apologize? For what exactly? For linking to someone else’s quote and saying, ‘what do you all think’?
Your comments that this isn’t a good resource for science are- well, I don’t know what purpose they serve. If you think it’s devoid of any true science, why bother to read or comment? It sounds childish to attack in this manner.
Worse- it’s silly to start trying to read people’s minds telling them that they know what they’re saying isn’t true or that they’re deliberately misunderstaing you, when it could be a simple case of you being wrong. That is possible, I can assume, no?
Wells wasn’t trying to say Ballard is, in any way anti-evolution, or even anti NeoDarwinian evolution. He was speaking of a specific part of Ballard’s paper, and it matches the quote in the book and matches the facts so far as I can tell.
Comment by JasonTheGreek — November 4, 2006 @ 6:28 pm
#
18. Scott // Nov 4th 2006 at 6:32 pm
kharley471: Adios o thou who art enomored with 19th century mystery religions. Thou shalt be greatly missed.
Comment by Scott — November 4, 2006 @ 6:32 pm
#
19. Touchstone // Nov 4th 2006 at 6:34 pm
pk4_paul,
I think Myers mis-stated the case viz. Wells, yes. It doesn’t come across to me as clearly dishonest, but it’s not a fair representation of Wells, I’ll grant. And it should be addressed.
But as a Christian, I urge high standards and generous attitudes for everyone, but I don’t expect PZ to show the same standards of conduct in discourse as I expect from Christians.
UD would have much more leverage and moral credibility here if they just separated the two: a) came clean for being a bullhorn for accusations that were false, then b) pursued the “gastrula” question completely separately, without mention of the McGrew gaffe at all. That shows an intent to operate from the high ground in the debate, where UD belongs.
As it is, it’s increasingly clear that UD has chosen to pursue a scientific debate with a strategy of scorched-earth politics. Or fight a katie-bar-the-door political battle under the pretense of a scientific debate. Take your pick.
-Touchstone
Comment by Touchstone — November 4, 2006 @ 6:34 pm
#
20. Touchstone // Nov 4th 2006 at 6:43 pm
Jehu,
I don’t think I need to disagree with your analysis of Myer’s approach to simply say it doesn’t/shouldn’t get in the way of simply saying: we went off half-cocked, sorry! You can pursue your complaints against PZ with all due vigor — I won’t think to deny you that, even if I’m able (I’m not).
This is really more about UD being “stand-up” folk when things go haywire. If Myers did mischaracterize Wells, make your case, you’re doing a fine job. But spare us the “Never-mind-the-false-accusations-what-about-this-other-thing” tactics. Or the “We just said ‘You be the judge’” plea… This crew here aims at higher standards than that, I’m sure.
McGrew blew it. We should have checked it out first, and didn’t. We regret the error and will strive do better in vetting things like this in the future…
Is that so hard?
-Touchstone
Comment by Touchstone — November 4, 2006 @ 6:43 pm
#
21. Jehu // Nov 4th 2006 at 7:52 pm
kharley471
Well, I see the way the games works, at least. You are deliberately misunderstanding me, although I think that you know quite well what I’ve said.
Actually, I have understood you quite well and you have failed to make a salient point.
First of all, I was referring to Well’s “citation,” not yours.
And so that means you understand the science here?
“This is a blog not a journal.” It sure isn’t a scholarly journal, we agree on that. But therefore, not being one, I don’t know how anyone can say with a straight face this blog is an authoritative resource on science.
Nobody said that it is, so as usual, you have no point.
“I don’t see any evidence that you understand the science being discussed here or have bothered to read Ballard’s paper.” I have read it. You are toying with me. Well, go toy with an amateur.
Then I guess you have just failed to demonstrate that you comprehend it.
“Ballard does not explain what ‘early’ means at each stage.” Now, that is just stupid. You know perfectly well that Ballard made it clear to which stage he referred when discussing development at each point in his article. This is just childish.
Sure, but he didn’t “explain what ‘early’ means at each stage” as you claim. What Ballard states is that none of the early stages are conserved, they are distinct, which is what Wells’ described. So your allegaton that Wells misused Ballard is entirely baseless.
Comment by Jehu — November 4, 2006 @ 7:52 pm"
-
On 11/04/2006 08:20:00 PM, JanieBelle waxed damned near poetic whilst opining...
-
Hey, I made your comments white to show up really well on the black page, but they stay white and don't show up on this page.
I'll have to pick a different color.
-
On 11/04/2006 09:03:00 PM, Kristine waxed damned near poetic whilst opining...
-
Well, I love the red! Perfect for me, the scarlett harlot.
Wells was speaking on a "specific issue"? Like what? The vague definition of "early"?
Gawd what a run-around. And that's how they do it, pointless attacks on little things you say until you can't keep it straight anymore, and daring you to stutter. Then they pounce. Oh, but this is about science.
Do you mind if I post your comment and link that didn't come through? I have it saved on my e-mail.
-
On 11/04/2006 09:04:00 PM, Kristine waxed damned near poetic whilst opining...
-
Dembski must not be too involved with the blog BTW, because he answered my e-mail, and that's my moniker. Or else he really really likes me.
-
On 11/05/2006 08:52:00 AM, JanieBelle waxed damned near poetic whilst opining...
-
Go right ahead. I only buried this in case you needed to keep a low profile for a while.
-
On 11/05/2006 08:54:00 AM, JanieBelle waxed damned near poetic whilst opining...
-
"Or else he really really likes me."
I want pictures when you get him chained to the mizzen mast....
;-)
-
On 11/05/2006 10:25:00 AM, JanieBelle waxed damned near poetic whilst opining...
-
Yet more tardiness. A comment that must have been held up in moderation got posted as #16, pushing later comments further down.
" 16. pk4_paul // Nov 4th 2006 at 5:38 pm
Ballard never contradicted ToE and you know that. Or are you going to tell me that Wells never argues against it now or misuses Ballard to do so?
Unbelievable. Is that the depth of your analysis? Ballard believed in ToE and Wells doesn’t, therefore, Wells must be misusing Ballard? That is the level of your understanding?
Jehu, panda thinking is that if one believes in ToE any references to that individual’s statements about a specific related issue are out of bounds and likely to incur the quote mining charge. It is as if any criticisms that could be turned against ToE are unfair when the source is a ToE advocate.
Comment by pk4_paul — November 4, 2006 @ 5:38 pm
"
and further commentary after Jehu's of 7:52....
"#
23. Patrick // Nov 4th 2006 at 10:03 pm
But spare us the “Never-mind-the-false-accusations-what-about-this-other-thing” tactics. Or the “We just said ‘You be the judge’” plea… This crew here aims at higher standards than that, I’m sure.
I’m a UD mod. My first reaction to McGrew’s accusation was skepticism since I doubted Meyers would falsify something so easy to double-check. Fortunately Meyers himself saved me the bother of looking up the relevant pages in the book. I also very much doubt Sal was lying about his intentions to merely discuss the accusation. After all, if you look at the title it says “More antics from PZ Myers?”…notice the question mark?
At the same there is definitely more to discuss when it comes to the accuracy of Meyer’s claim (which, based upon the above comments, has been adequately shot down).
Comment by Patrick — November 4, 2006 @ 10:03 pm
#
24. cfrench // Nov 4th 2006 at 10:45 pm
“…fellow scientist, Jonathan Wells.”
…I just threw up.
Comment by cfrench — November 4, 2006 @ 10:45 pm
#
25. russ // Nov 4th 2006 at 10:58 pm
Sayonara.
Comment by kharley471 — November 4, 2006 @ 5:52 pm
Thank you. I was having a hard time getting at your points because your belligerence kept getting in the way.
Comment by russ — November 4, 2006 @ 10:58 pm
#
26. Touchstone // Nov 5th 2006 at 12:59 am
Hi Patrick,
I accept your point about PZ Myers being in the title, as opposed to McGrew — you’re suggesting that removes McGrew as the *subject*, right? A technical, but fair argument.
Still, the “Antics” in question then are not the “antics” being pressed now (see Jehu’s arguments above, for example).
As for Sal, well, color me cynical I guess; the question mark is there, but it doesn’t really signal a spirit of inquiry, at least not any more than the National Enquirer at that supermarket yesterday was truly just curious:
Did Urban cheat on Jen?
I’m sure they’d say “Notice the question mark?” if the reports turned out to be false.
No one’s fooling anybody here with punctuation.
That’s the sum of my complaint, I suppose. Enough from me, though, I’ve said my piece on this matter.
-Touchstone
Comment by Touchstone — November 5, 2006 @ 12:59 am
#
27. JasonTheGreek // Nov 5th 2006 at 1:33 am
24. cfrench // Nov 4th 2006 at 10:45 pm
“…fellow scientist, Jonathan Wells.”
…I just threw up.
I assume you think that anyone who isn’t a Darwinist isn’t a true scientist?
I wonder what it takes to be a “true scientist”? The inventor of the laser is a young earth creationist. I guess he’s not a true scientist. Are only men who think that there is no God true scientists? Or maybe it’s men who think God exists but is impossible to detect in the world? I wonder who gets to choose who a true scientist and who isn’t? Is there a special board somewhere of men with black robes who sit on fancy benches who make these decisions?
I wonder it it merely requires a certain level of groupthink before you’re considered a true scientist?
I wonder if you can be considered a true scientist, then take a position close to Wells and they take away your “true scientist” member card?
Comment by JasonTheGreek — November 5, 2006 @ 1:33 am
#
28. JasonTheGreek // Nov 5th 2006 at 1:42 am
Touchstone. I don’t see what the big deal is. Sal linked to another site that made a claim about PZ. PZ, probably seeing the long pattern of rabid comments from PZ, wondered if these were more antics…he simply brought the subject up for discussion.
The professor who made the original charge Sal linked to apologized. Sal noted this. I don’t think he has anything to be sorry for. He never made any charge against anyone…as he said, he just brought it up for discussion. Isn’t that fair to do? I think his wording was VERY fair- he said “more antics from PZ?” the question mark is, I think, quite important. Especially since in the post itself he merely said- here’s a comment from someone else, YOU be the judge.
So, he was clearly not passing judgement himself, just linking to another and asking those who comment here to judge the issue.
I don’t see any other way he could have even brought the topic up, unless he started it off with “I swear an oath I am not personally passing judgement…”- which would be rather pointless, since it’s already inherent in the wording itself. He asked US to be the judge, which shows he wasn’t passing judgement, but simply offering up this link for discussion.
Comment by JasonTheGreek — November 5, 2006 @ 1:42 am
#
29. rrf // Nov 5th 2006 at 3:58 am
Jason, you are no more convincing than Sal with this “it was just for discussion” line. The only reason it was put up here at Uncommon Descent was because it was critical of PZ. Any article complementary of PZ would never see the light of day around here. Until such a time as an article that reflects positively on PZ (and I am not holding my breath), all Sal was doing was engaging in smug carping.
Comment by rrf — November 5, 2006 @ 3:58 am
"
-
On 11/05/2006 12:44:00 PM, Kristine waxed damned near poetic whilst opining...
-
Oh for heaven's sakes! "I'm a blog mod." Those guys must be starved for women over there! Do you think?
I tried to change my moniker to "Kristine" precisely so that they would know who I am, but it kept changing back. Probably because I was hacking their site. ;-)
I could be learning a foreign language instead of yakking with them. Oh, wait. I'm learning two (French and Spanish).
I'm so glad they left my comments up, particularly my it's-a-date jab at Billy. When he stands me up I'm going to make a stink. What a pity that I have to wait a decade.
-
On 12/14/2006 03:52:00 PM, waxed damned near poetic whilst opining...
-
