Keith A. Crandall's Careless DNA Claims

[_DarkHelmet]

I have most of the people participating in this thread on permanent ignore and I do not read their posts nor feel any need to ever respond to them because they are so derogatory and impolite. So, if you wish to make a serious point, I'll be happy to respond. Otherwise, you are welcome to quit the field at any time.

So basically you're in an echo chamber of your own making debating yourself?

Yep. I know people like that in real life. They're called douchebags.

[_DrW]

Tobin,

I was going to respond but I feel others have done an excellent job of demonstrating that your position does not hold up to scrutiny. I think you need to give it up now.

I have most of the people participating in this thread on permanent ignore and I do not read their posts nor feel any need to ever respond to them because they are so derogatory and impolite. So, if you wish to make a serious point, I'll be happy to respond. Otherwise, you are welcome to quit the field at any time.

How many good threads does Tobin have to derail before board members finally learn not to to engage him, or at least severely limit their number of responses to him?

With his ignorant Who me? approach to discussion, he turns out to be more effective in stiffing meaningful discussion and making the board look trivial and silly than the next several contrarian obstructionists combined.

I am not suggesting that anyone put him on ignore, just that they understand and consider the consequences of engaging with him. IMHO, he quit being "entertaining" a long time ago.

[_GrandMoffTarkin]

I have most of the people participating in this thread on permanent ignore and I do not read their posts nor feel any need to ever respond to them because they are so derogatory and impolite. So, if you wish to make a serious point, I'll be happy to respond. Otherwise, you are welcome to quit the field at any time.

How many good threads does Tobin have to derail before board members finally learn not to to engage him, or at least severely limit their number of responses to him?

With his ignorant Who me? approach to discussion, he turns out to be more effective in stiffing meaningful discussion and making the board look trivial and silly than the next several contrarian obstructionists combined.

I am not suggesting that anyone put him on ignore, just that they understand and consider the consequences of engaging with him. IMHO, he quit being "entertaining" a long time ago.

Sorry, Doc. I'm new here, but I'll learn.

[_Tobin]

How many good threads does Tobin have to derail before board members finally learn not to to engage him, or at least severely limit their number of responses to him?

With his ignorant Who me? approach to discussion, he turns out to be more effective in stiffing meaningful discussion and making the board look trivial and silly than the next several contrarian obstructionists combined.

I am not suggesting that anyone put him on ignore, just that they understand and consider the consequences of engaging with him. IMHO, he quit being "entertaining" a long time ago.

Sorry, Doc. I'm new here, but I'll learn.

It seems DrW is again discouraging discussion on an open forum. DrW is a proven liar and an intellectual simpleton. All he wishes to do is engage in his usual self-congratulatory bore-fest with the rest of his sycophants on this forum and they certainly can't tolerate anyone that criticizes their positions.

Anyway, my offer stands. If you have something meaningful to contribute, then I'll be happy to respond.

[_GrandMoffTarkin]

Tobin,

I was going to respond but I feel others have done an excellent job of demonstrating that your position does not hold up to scrutiny. I think you need to give it up now.

I have most of the people participating in this thread on permanent ignore and I do not read their posts nor feel any need to ever respond to them because they are so derogatory and impolite. So, if you wish to make a serious point, I'll be happy to respond. Otherwise, you are welcome to quit the field at any time.

You began by making the general statement that to use science to try to disprove religious claims is a misuse of science.

Here are the statements you made to try to show that.

You said:

Science is not in the business of proving or disproving religious claims. No credible scientist goes around doing that.

When I pointed out that, for example, Lawrence Krauss and Neil Degrasse Tyson are credible scientists and do that, you backed away from the general statement and said:

I think scientists who use their professional publications and forums to comment on religious matters should have their qualifications seriously questioned by their peers.

This was an attempt to narrow it down and accuse Simon of something scientists like Krauss have not done.

However, when challenged by dryfly to show where Simon Southerton has done that, you failed to do so and reverted back to a more general statement:

As I've said before, Simon seems to be using his professional credentials to legitimize his attacks on Mormonism (a religion). For example, he is not above using studies not aimed at proving or disproving Mormon claims, but instead chooses misrepresent what those studies are meant to show and does so in seemingly his professional capacity as a scientist. Now, if he is simply offering his opinion, it seems rather disingenuous that he feels other scientists such as Crandall can't also offer their opinions and advocates they be censured for it.

Do you see what's happening here? don't you get that scientists such as Richard Dawkins, Lawrence Krauss and Neil Degrasse Tyson regularly use their professional credentials to legitimize their criticisms of religion? You're arguing in circles. We've already shown that some respected scientists do this.

So please, stop pretending as though there is any credibility to your position. You've invented a definition of "misuse of science" that no one but you agrees with and you've failed to show that Simon Southerton does anything different than a number of other respected scientist who go around debunking religious claims.

I know it's hard for you to realize, but you'd actually gain a modicum of respect if you just admitted defeat.

Oh, and for the record, you misquoted me in one of your posts. You said:

You are welcome to point it out what you believe the science is all you wish. However, as you've also noted, that is not what scientists are concerned with. Science is not in the business of proving or disproving religious claims. No credible scientist goes around doing that. So if you believe your approach is scientific, you are simply wrong. Those engaged in real scientific work simply don't waste their time disputing which religious beliefs are valid or not.

I never said that (that scientists aren't concerned with pointing out that religious claims aren't true). I only agreed that the primary job of science is not to disprove religious claims. I never agreed that it was not a legitimate use of scientific research or that scientists were not permitted to go the extra step and point out that their research disproves a religious claim.

[Guest]

How many good threads does Tobin have to derail before board members finally learn not to to engage him, or at least severely limit their number of responses to him?

With his ignorant Who me? approach to discussion, he turns out to be more effective in stiffing meaningful discussion and making the board look trivial and silly than the next several contrarian obstructionists combined.

I am not suggesting that anyone put him on ignore, just that they understand and consider the consequences of engaging with him. IMHO, he quit being "entertaining" a long time ago.

Sorry, Doc. I'm new here, but I'll learn.

Hey GMT,

No worries. You are certainly not the first, and will probably not be the last.

Many here have done the same thing. As you might imagine, once is usually enough, because the outcome is always the same.

by the way, Tobin has many of us here on permanent ignore, which makes it very easy not to engage with him. (Brackite was so honored on this thread.)

[_Tobin]

Do you see what's happening here? don't you get that scientists such as Richard Dawkins, Lawrence Krauss and Neil Degrasse Tyson regularly use their professional credentials to legitimize their criticisms of religion? You're arguing in circles. We've already shown that some respected scientists do this.

No. You are just misconstruing my statements and when I clarify you fail repeatedly to respond in any meaningful way to what I've said.

So please, stop pretending as though there is any credibility to your position. You've invented a definition of "misuse of science" that no one but you agrees with and you've failed to show that Simon Southerton does anything different than a number of other respected scientist who go around debunking religious claims.

Not at all. I stand by the very reasonable position that science should be not be engaged in dictating to people which religious beliefs are valid or not. And that it is not appropriate for scientists to do so in their professional pursuits. And the fact you can't acknowledge or quickly agree with my position is rather comical to me actually.

I know it's hard for you to realize, but you'd actually gain a modicum of respect if you just admitted defeat.

All I've seen you do is dodge and refuse to acknowledge the issues I've clearly stated to you. Instead of demonstrating the intellectual honesty of recognizing the problem, you instead just dismiss and ignore it. If all you wish to do is engage in a distortion of my positions, I fail to see the point of your posts?

Oh, and for the record, you misquoted me in one of your posts. You said:

You are welcome to point it out what you believe the science is all you wish. However, as you've also noted, that is not what scientists are concerned with. Science is not in the business of proving or disproving religious claims. No credible scientist goes around doing that. So if you believe your approach is scientific, you are simply wrong. Those engaged in real scientific work simply don't waste their time disputing which religious beliefs are valid or not.

I never said that (that scientists aren't concerned with pointing out that religious claims aren't true). I only agreed that the primary job of science is not to disprove religious claims. I never agreed that it was not a legitimate use of scientific research or that scientists were not permitted to go the extra step and point out that their research disproves a religious claim.

I have no intention of distorting your positions and if I'm misstating or misunderstanding something, you are always welcome to clarify your position. In follow-up, do you believe that science should be engaged in the business of telling people what religious beliefs are valid or not? Are scientists to be the arbitrators of truth?

[_ludwigm]

Hey GMT

Greenwich Mean Time (GMT) originally referred to the mean solar time at the Royal Observatory in Greenwich, London

SS (--> Sunday School) is Schutzstaffel for all of us in Old World.
[#img] http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c ... en.svg.png[/img]
.

And so on...
There are people outside of US.
I know You Know it.

I am offtopic again

[_honorentheos]

I stand by the very reasonable position that science should be not be engaged in dictating to people which religious beliefs are valid or not.

If this were truly his view, Tobin would be condemning Crandall for dictating a religious belief that pre-Columbian Maya would share DNA with the Hebrew peoples. He would also be praising Southerton for pointing out to Crandall (originally in private and now in public once Crandall refused to consider the science in favor of his previous religious-based assertions) where more current scientific research unrelated to religion shows Crandall is misrepresenting the science to make a claim that a certain religious belief is valid based on scientific research.

[_GrandMoffTarkin]

No. You are just misconstruing my statements and when I clarify you fail repeatedly to respond in any meaningful way to what I've said.

How am I misconstruing your statements?

Not at all. I stand by the very reasonable position that science should be not be engaged in dictating to people which religious beliefs are valid or not. And that it is not appropriate for scientists to do so in their professional pursuits. And the fact you can't acknowledge or quickly agree with my position is rather comical to me actually.

Reasonable because you say so? No one in this thread is agreeing you and I've not seen you post any authority on the matter.

All I've seen you do is dodge and refuse to acknowledge the issues I've clearly stated to you. Instead of demonstrating the intellectual honesty of recognizing the problem, you instead just dismiss and ignore it. If all you wish to do is engage in a distortion of my positions, I fail to see the point of your posts?

What have I dodged or refused to acknowledge?

I have no intention of distorting your positions and if I'm misstating or misunderstanding something, you are always welcome to clarify your position. In follow-up, do you believe that science should be engaged in the business of telling people what religious beliefs are valid or not? Are scientists to be the arbitrators of truth?

Science is the pursuit of knowledge. Science aims to uncover truth. This often involves dispelling myth, whether the myths be old wives tales (cold temperature causes colds, you'll go blind if you masturbate too much, etc.), superstitions or religious claims. If we don't debunk what isn't true then what is the point of learning more about the world in which we live?

Your version of science seems to somehow operate in a vacuum. We do research but we don't apply it to anything...it makes no sense.

Scientists themselves are obviously not the arbitrators of truth, nor does Simon claim to be. However, when credible studies are done that evidence the truth or untruth of certain claims, we should be talking about it.

So, for example, if a study has determined that the DNA of Native Americans does not includes any middle eastern DNA from the period of the Book of Mormon (of course unless it is some really tiny group somewhere that remains to be tested - but that doesn't really agree with the Book of Mormon itself), not only is it okay for a scientist to point that out, they SHOULD be doing so. Who wants to believe something that is demonstrably false? You know that it is the DNA studies that caused the church to change the introduction to the Book of Mormon...