Originally posted by sonhouseYou do not know what you are talking about because Dr. Gentry is a nuclear physicists and he was given an honorary doctorate because of his discoveries. However, there are many others with school earned doctorate degrees that agree with him on the fact that the Earth is young.
The fact remains he is not a nuclear physicist like he claims. MS degrees are almost entry level for the big boys. Are you disputing he got canned for being involved with a clear creationist legal proceeding?
I'll say it once more: When someone comes into an investigation, scientific, forensic, medical, whatever, if that person has a built in agenda, any ...[text shortened]... and those ends are clearly stated. He is just another apologist for the creationist fairy tale.
The Instructor
Originally posted by RJHindsHaving an honorary doctorate is not having a doctorate, it is just a pat on the back. He cannot in reality be called a doctor since his only real work was at the Ms level.
You do not know what you are talking about because Dr. Gentry is a nuclear physicists and he was given an honorary doctorate because of his discoveries. However, there are many others with school earned doctorate degrees that agree with him on the fact that the Earth is young.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3PY0zzh8G3c
The Instructor
Originally posted by sonhouseThere have been many other people, who have been given honorary doctorate degrees because of their work and each of them are called doctor. This is no different. What is the purpose of the honorary doctorate degree if one can not be called by the title? It is completely idiotic for you to even suggest such a stupid thing.
Having an honorary doctorate is not having a doctorate, it is just a pat on the back. He cannot in reality be called a doctor since his only real work was at the Ms level.
The Instructor
Originally posted by RJHindsSo I have this honorary doctorate say in physics, I put down on my resume, I can do this nuclear research leader job because I have been educated. I have an honorary doctorate in nuclear physics.
There have been many other people, who have been given honorary doctorate degrees because of their work and each of them are called doctor. This is no different. What is the purpose of the honorary doctorate degree if one can not be called by the title? It is completely idiotic for you to even suggest such a stupid thing.
The Instructor
The job pays 200K a year and I think I am qualified sir.
Sure, that and a cup of coffee will get you a dime.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
Originally posted by DeepThoughtI will come back with more thoughts later...
RJ's God is all powerful so can avoid that, my comments wrt God were personalized to him. I realize we differ on this - I don't apply scientific criteria to the existence of God - the more-or-less absence of non-biblical evidence is a fairly natural thing for an all powerful entity - so I'm an agnostic. I don't need to rule out finitely powerful gods i ...[text shortened]... stence of faster-than-light neutrinos is evidence for the existence of Gremlins 😉
But my point was all science and nothing to do with the atheist/agnostic debate.
I completely agree that RJHinds Gödel argument doesn't hold any water on any level,
and agree with your refutation of it.
I was just nitpicking the point that there is nothing that says [in principle] that if
gods exist science couldn't detect them.
Now you may be able to create god concepts that could never be detected ever, but
unless you specify what gods you are talking about I have to assume you are talking
about gods in general.
[off topic]
I have two proposals for solving this perennial problem of religion being constantly put into the science forum where it doesn't belong and were it spoils it for us who have a genuine interest in science.
Firstly, put a ban on any reference to any creationist website or creationist videos. Any post with reference to a creationist website in a science forum should be autocratically removed and, if someone persists for too long trying to repeatedly make such reference to a creationists website or creationist video, they will be banned from the science forum. We scientists, and those with a genuine interest in science in the science forum, don't watch them anyway so they just make useless clutter in the threads.
This would, of course, mean banning RJHinds from doing this like he frequently does.
Secondly, anyone that frequently and persistently posts with a religious agenda in this science forum and who never shows a genuine interest in science for its own sake should be banned from this science forum. After all, this is supposed to be a SCIENCE forum for people that have at least a genuine passing interest in science.
This would, of course, mean banning RJHinds from this forum for he has NEVER shown a genuine interest in science. When has he ever asked a question about science without a religious agenda -answer, never! If he or anyone wants to speak against science for their religious agenda, they are perfectly free to do that in the Spirituality forum and I have no objection for that BUT, keep religion OUT of the science forum!
I would prefer if both of these above proposals would be implemented but, at the very least, I think just a ban on any reference to a creationist website or creationist video in the science forum would be better than nothing!
Who agrees with these proposals?
Excluding those with a religious agenda, does anyone DISagree with these proposals and, if so, why so?
P.S. I have also posted the above in the 'Site Ideas Forum' as the OP of my
'New rules to stop religious rhetoric hijacking the science forum' thread.
[/off topic]
Originally posted by humyI don't suppose RJ reading this would make him think twice about posting nonsense creationist videos here in the science forum.
[off topic]
I have two proposals for solving this perennial problem of religion being constantly put into the science forum where it doesn't belong and were it spoils it for us who have a genuine interest in science.
Firstly, put a ban on any reference to any creationist website or creationist videos. Any post with reference to a creationist website in a s ...[text shortened]... 'New rules to stop religious rhetoric hijacking the science forum' thread.
[/off topic]
I've often wondered if there was some way to keep religion out of this forum, and the only idea I've had, apart from censorship by forum-ban which should not have to be used in any forum, is a serious, concerted effort by all scientists and also non-scientists interested in scientific topics to stamp on EVERY single post which has no purpose beyond beating the religion drum. That means: NO arguing with RJH, or anyone else who wants to play these games, NO attempting to reason with him (you can't), NO response of any kind, other than a click on the Alert Moderator button. We'd drive the mods mad for a short while, then the unrepentant offenders would all have their forum bans in place, the ones who didn't want to lose their total posting rights would leave the science forum, and we'd have the result we want.
Does anyone think it could possibly work, and if not, why?
Originally posted by KewpieIf you notice, we did try that, look at the last posts by RJ (What is science?), we just left that unanswered. I think ignoring him would be best. Just post over him and go on with the original science story.
I've often wondered if there was some way to keep religion out of this forum, and the only idea I've had, apart from censorship by forum-ban which should not have to be used in any forum, is a serious, concerted effort by all scientists and also non-scientists interested in scientific topics to stamp on EVERY single post which has no purpose beyond beating th e'd have the result we want.
Does anyone think it could possibly work, and if not, why?
Originally posted by sonhouseThe problem is, ignoring him won't make him go away from here. That's why I think only banning him from being here will do.
If you notice, we did try that, look at the last posts by RJ (What is science?), we just left that unanswered. I think ignoring him would be best. Just post over him and go on with the original science story.
Originally posted by RJHinds
You guys are against freedom of thought and expression in science. You require everyone to think like you or be quite.
The Instructor
You guys are against freedom of thought and expression in science.
No, YOU are. Your don't want us to express any thought that contradicts your religion or your rhetoric so it is YOU who is against OUR freedom of thought and expression in science. We are not against your freedom of thought -you can express all your religious crap in the Spirituality forum all you want and none of us reject to that BUT NOT HERE because this is a SCIENCE forum. And you have nothing to say about science and have NEVER expressed any interest in science let alone any understanding of it. You have NEVER made any contribution to a discussion about any science.
You should be permanently banned from this forum.
This is a SCIENCE forum, NOT a religious propaganda forum, so you have no right to put your religious rhetoric here.
If you want to preach your religious crap, go to the Spirituality forum where it belongs.