More scientists express doubts on Darwin

WorldNetDaily.com ^ | June 22, 2006 1:00 a.m. Eastern

[AndrewC]

I said reputation as a researcher, not ability to sell books.

Nice feint, but you attacked her because of what she wrote. Her title is not researcher.

[wireman]

AGAIN, I WILL THANK ANN COULTER FOR DESTROYING DARWIN IN HER BOOK, GODLESS.

Oh yes. Scientific research at its finest.

[OmahaFields]

I think he attacked her for not having a basis for what she wrote.

[OmahaFields]

The key to the above quote is that Derbyshire says that he believes that Christianity

Thanks for the enlightening post. Question: Does he only reference Christianity or all religions / faiths?

[Coyoteman]

I said reputation as a researcher, not ability to sell books.

Nice feint, but you attacked her because of what she wrote. Her title is not researcher.

I commented on the quality of the research; in the sections on evolution, it was not good.

When you do a book, it is your responsibility to do the research. That means, scholarship. If you cite a reference, cite it correctly, not what somebody else says about it. Read the original article, know what it says, and cite it correctly.

Didn't a lot of the citations go back to the New York Times?

[OmahaFields]

If you cite a reference, cite it correctly, not what somebody else says about it. Read the original article, know what it says, and cite it correctly.

This may not sink in on him.

[AndrewC]

I think he attacked her for not having a basis for what she wrote.

She certainly does have a basis for what she writes. It is political.

[AndrewC]

I commented on the quality of the research; in the sections on evolution, it was not good.

The book does not appear to be a research paper.

[Coyoteman]

I commented on the quality of the research; in the sections on evolution, it was not good.

The book does not appear to be a research paper.

I'm glad you admitted that.

To me, a book that doesn't have good solid research is useless. What is there to trust if the research is not solid? Opinion? Everybody has opinions.

Without documented research, opinions are not worth much.

[OmahaFields]

She certainly does have a basis for what she writes. It is political.

She writes that there is no scientific evidence supporting evolution. Where did she get that?

[AndrewC]

To me, a book that doesn't have good solid research is useless.

I pity your literary universe.

[AndrewC]

Where did she get that?

I don't know. Where did you get it?

[Coyoteman]

To me, a book that doesn't have good solid research is useless.

I pity your literary universe.

No pity needed. I do science for a living.

But when I step back from science, I have a degree in English Literature to sustain me with less demanding genres.

I know the difference between the two. Unfortunately, the evolution sections of Ann's latest book do not come up to the standards of good, quality research. Don't believe me? Just follow her references back to the originals, and see what they say. It is not rocket science, you can do it for yourself.

[AndrewC]

No pity needed. I do science for a living.

And living must be poor. ;^)

[fabian]

It does...the fossil record is missing the gradual changes that it should show if evolution were true. I think if Darwin were alive today he would admit that his theory is false. But the doubt thoughts can talk to people's minds and cause them to believe anything.

[Coyoteman]

No pity needed. I do science for a living.

And living must be poor. ;^)

I drive a good Ford truck, not a Yugo or a BMW, and get to haul the horses into the hills now and then to do a research trip.

Wouldn't trade it for all the creation science you could shake apologetics at, that's for sure. Bunch of armchair scholars. "Its in the book." "No, you're wrong, its not in the book." "No, its there, but it means this." "No, it means that!"

Thanks, but I'll head for the hills and catch sunrise through the redwoods, or see more stars at night that most folks believe exist.

Some might call that "poor living" but I sure wouldn't.

[OmahaFields]

And living must be poor. ;^)

Not exactly. :-) You should do so well.

[AndrewC]

Thanks, but I'll head for the hills and catch sunrise through the redwoods, or see more stars at night that most folks believe exist.

You haven't seen stars until you've seen them at at least 50,000 ft. Then you can reach out and touch the face of God.

[AndrewC]

You should do so well.

I've done much better.

Mat 6:20 But lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust doth corrupt, and where thieves do not break through nor steal:

[Coyoteman]

You haven't seen stars until you've seen them at at least 50,000 ft. Then you can reach out and touch the face of God.

If you were at 50,000 feet I bet you were too busy to be looking at the stars. Or you should have been! When I drive an airplane I keep my eyes on the instruments or on what's coming at me from the front. Start lolly-gagging and you're a statistic.

Still doesn't support your claim back in #394, "And living must be poor. ;^)"

I think you're blowing smoke, myself.