Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Mercury’s Magnetic Field is Young!
CMI ^ | Russell Humphreys, Ph.D.

Posted on 09/04/2009 8:50:36 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 651-700701-750751-800801-813 last
To: AndrewC
You are not getting away with it.

Okay, you're not getting away with claiming you're a member of a defunct organization. Well, if you're going to nitpick over irrelevant sidelines, so can I.

Back to the point, at least you tried to show actual retaliation against Sternberg. Too bad it got shot down, and he wasn't kicked out. Got any other real evidence of actual retaliation against Sternberg? Did they give him an atomic wedgie? Did they make the poor baby cry?

Do the words, "NCSE HAS NO BUSINESS", finally mean something to you?

So you were hoping they'd railroad Sternberg.

It was peer reviewed.

And my dog peer reviewed my homework. Doesn't make it valid, even if true. The peer review should be up to the scientific standards of the publication, and obviously this was not given the post-review condemnation. Apparently Sternberg doesn't like strict review and rigorous scientific standards, so the lax ISCID was perfect for him.

Again that is your opinion. Which along with five bucks will get you a cup of coffee.

No, that would be fact, by their own admission. The Wedge Document describes a publicity campaign designed to create doubt, starting with apologetics to an audience of Christian believers. Oh wait, I thought ID wasn't about religion.

explain how papers such as the following could possibly be published in peer reviewed journals.

Actually, many ID scientists are able to compartmentalize. Even the NCSE realized this in their emails. Oh no, those horrible emails, creating such great offense by defending Sternberg. The SI had no business getting info about ID and dealing with IDers from the leading ID information source!

801 posted on 09/10/2009 5:41:14 AM PDT by antiRepublicrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 800 | View Replies]

To: antiRepublicrat
Okay, you're not getting away with claiming you're a member of a defunct organization. Well, if you're going to nitpick over irrelevant sidelines, so can I.

I didn't get away with it. I corrected myself unlike you. Who still claim it means something of a gift to Sternberg to be sponsored.

Back to the point,

That was adequately demonstrated by two investigations, despite your opinion to the contrary. Rave oon. The two investigations still remain pointing out the mistreatment of Sternberg.

So you were hoping they'd railroad Sternberg.

Are you really that dense?

Doesn't make it valid, even if true.

Okay so it is true.

No, that would be fact, by their own admission. The Wedge Document describes a publicity campaign...

No. You are not going to get away with that twisting of your statement which was ..."That would be the ongoing public fascination created by the modern ID movement guided by the Wedge Document". The public fascination was mentioned by Shapiro in his comments about general biological findings. So don't try a bald-faced lie about it just a few postings away from the quote.

Actually, many ID scientists are able to compartmentalize. Even the NCSE realized this in their emails.

B.S. are you a psychologist now? Your arguments are pitiful. Remember "NCSE HAD NO BUSINESS..." And if so, what is the complaint about Sternberg then? His science is published routinely in peer reviewed manuals. IOW, he is a "real" scientist according to your personal definition.

802 posted on 09/10/2009 6:11:27 AM PDT by AndrewC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 801 | View Replies]

To: AndrewC
Who still claim it means something of a gift to Sternberg to be sponsored.

RA status is a privilege.

The two investigations still remain pointing out the mistreatment of Sternberg.

Investigations I proved to be flawed.

Are you really that dense?

You're the one railing against the involvement of Sternberg's main defender.

You are not going to get away with that twisting of your statement

People have been interested in science in general. This modern-day supposed controversy and growing public interest in it is the result of the planned and coordinated ID campaign.

NCSE HAD NO BUSINESS

According to you.

IOW, he is a "real" scientist according to your personal definition.

He was able to compartmentalize. Eventually he wasn't able to do that and thus blew his professional reputation as a scientist, something that caused much resentment among his colleagues.

Oh, I forgot, that couldn't have been resentment he himself caused, it was unwarranted persecution, right? When someone is irresponsible and conspires to push a substandard paper through a prestigious journal there should be no repercussions if he's an IDer.

Failure to take responsibility for your actions, cry persecution over the natural repercussions to your actions. Hmmm, that sounds familiar...

Congratulations, you are now on the road to being a politically-correct protected class!

803 posted on 09/10/2009 7:40:23 AM PDT by antiRepublicrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 802 | View Replies]

To: antiRepublicrat
RA status is a privilege.

Yes, to all research associates. A paying job at SI is also a privilege. But there are legal rules and ethical rules that apply for both the appointer and the appointee. Nothing that Sternberg did was counter to his requirements. His sponsor stated as much in the emails.

Investigations I proved to be flawed.

Your opinions are not proof.

You're the one railing against the involvement of Sternberg's main defender.

Yet again, "NCSE HAD NO BUSINESS...

This modern-day supposed controversy and growing public interest in it is the result of the planned and ...

This is Shapiro's statement again ...Although such purists as Dennett and Dawkins repeatedly assert that the scientific issues surrounding evolution are basically solved by conventional neo-Darwinism, the ongoing public fascination reveals a deeper wisdom.

That has nothing to do with ID.

According to you.

Yes, according to me. They have no affliation with SI and are in no chain of supervision over Sternberg. Simple logic proves "NCSE HAS NO BUSINESS..."

Eventually he wasn't able to do that and thus blew his professional reputation as a scientist, something that caused much resentment among his colleagues.

You are saying they resented that, according to you, he blew his reputation as a scientist? Preposterous and false. The Meyer incident happened in Jun 2004. He has had peer reviewed articles published since then. I gave you one.

Oh, I forgot, that couldn't have been resentment he himself caused,

Yeah he was breathing. In any case, NCSE instigated the witch hunt at SI and of course, "NCSE HAD NO BUSINESS..."

804 posted on 09/10/2009 10:48:21 AM PDT by AndrewC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 803 | View Replies]

To: AndrewC
Nothing that Sternberg did was counter to his requirements.

Not the mishandling of artifacts or jeopardizing his good standing as a scientist with the Meyer article?

Your opinions are not proof.

The proof is in the report. It says there was no evidence for mishandling, yet right there in the emails is evidence for mishandling.

That has nothing to do with ID.

Technically, no, Shapiro isn't an IDer, but he's open-minded. I was talking about the general debate.

Preposterous and false.

So the scientists all not wanting to work with him anymore because of what he pulled never happened?

NCSE instigated the witch hunt at SI

Back in reality, the scientists at the SI got pissed.

And yet we still sit here, after all of these exchanges, with no provable harm done to Sternberg by the management for his beliefs. We might as well end this if you can't show any real harm.

805 posted on 09/10/2009 12:07:14 PM PDT by antiRepublicrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 804 | View Replies]

To: antiRepublicrat
Not the mishandling of artifacts or jeopardizing his good standing as a scientist with the Meyer article?

Nope. Verified by a letter from the Smithsonian(Sheila P. Burke, Deputy Secretary and Chief Operating Officer) to Congressman Souder dated May 3, 2006 which stated that "Dr. von Sternberg is a Research Assoociate in good standing at NMNH."

The proof is in the report. It says there was no evidence for mishandling, yet right there in the emails is evidence for mishandling.

Again someone's opinion is not evidence. The record again shows, more specifically than the letter above since it was written directly to Sternberg, that First, you requested a letter of apology from Secretary Small to you stating that you did not break any Smithsonian rule, regulation or policy, and acknowledging that your reputation has been affected by statements made by staff of the National Museum of Natural History(NMNH). With this letter let me confirm that you fulfilled all of your responsibilities as a Research Associate with the Institution and that you are a Research Associate in good standing.

Technically, no, Shapiro isn't an IDer, but he's open-minded. I was talking about the general debate.

Okay so Shapiro's statement remains that there is an inquisitive populace who believes that neo-Darwinism does not solve some biological issues.

So the scientists all not wanting to work with him anymore because of what he pulled never happened?

Scientific reputation is a bit more involved than a few pissed off people not wanting to work with you.

Back in reality, the scientists at the SI got pissed.

NCSE is not SI and "NCSE HAD NO BUSINESS..."

And yet we still sit here, after all of these exchanges, with no provable harm done to Sternberg by the management for his beliefs

Repeatedly, I have stated that Sternberg was the target of a witch hunt. This is from a letter to SI which prompted SI's reply mentioned above. The letter was from Senator Santorum and Representative Souder.

Specifically, the OSC found that had Dr. Sternberg been protected by Title V of U.S. Code, the NMNH staff would have violated Section 2303(b)(10) referring to the prohibition on personnel to discriminate against an employee for non-job related activities. Additionally, the OSC found that "there is strong religious and political component to the actions taken after the publication of the Meyer article." The OSC letter concludes that the retaliation against Dr. Sternberg was supported by the evidence: "Our preliminary investigation indicates that retaliation came in many forms. It came in the form of attempts to change your working conditions and even proposals to change how the SI retains and deals with future RAs. During the process you were personally investigated and your professional competence attacked. Misinformation was disseminated throughtout the SI and to outside sources. The allegations against you were later determined to be false. It is clear that a hostile work environment was created with the ultimate goal of forcing you out of the SI."

806 posted on 09/10/2009 1:36:40 PM PDT by AndrewC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 805 | View Replies]

To: AndrewC
Nope. Verified by a letter from the Smithsonian

No, a letter wasn't sent directly to him about his overdue books. No, nobody ever complained about his keeping artifacts for far too long. No, nobody ever complained about his not managing inter-institutional transfers properly. No, nobody ever complained that he didn't keep artifacts in good condition. Someone might think that if he read the report or the DI press releases, but it's all right there in the emails.

Sure, the management let that slide and still considered him to be in good standing. Some persecution, huh? I think they just said that because they wanted the IDer attacks to go away. There was a lot of political pressure on them, as you have surely noticed.

The letter was from Senator Santorum and Representative Souder.

Two ultra-religious DI proponents who have an interest in promoting the lie of a persecution.

And I'm still trying to find evidence of any misinformation about him. Haven't found any yet, except from the IDers, of course.

807 posted on 09/10/2009 2:30:55 PM PDT by antiRepublicrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 806 | View Replies]

To: antiRepublicrat
Sure, the management let that slide and still considered him to be in good standing.

Again, your opinion and 5 dollars. The records clearly demonstrate, by the letters from SI, from the investigation by the OSC, and the last investigation by the Congressional staff, that the allegations were unfounded. The question of overdue books is a red herring, but how does one determine from unopened mail on a desk what is contained in unopened letters on a desk, especially when the desk is not yours, in an office which is not yours.

Two ultra-religious DI proponents who have an interest in promoting the lie of a persecution.

You are the liar. Plus "NCSE HAD NO BUSINESS..."

And I'm still trying to find evidence of any misinformation about him

Learn to look beyond your nose. An email(8/26/2004) from Hans Sues, Associate Director for Research and Collections, NMNH, replying to Eugenie Scott, NCSE, stated ...

I was interested to see that you characterize von Sternberg as a young-earth creationist.

That was just one.

808 posted on 09/10/2009 3:36:11 PM PDT by AndrewC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 807 | View Replies]

To: AndrewC
The records clearly demonstrate, by the letters from SI

... that he mishandled artifacts and books. A fact that the report glosses over because it was written for the consumption of ID backers.

You are the liar.

Santorum and Souder weren't ID backers? That's a new one. I guess the Santorum Amendment was named after someone else.

I was interested to see that you characterize von Sternberg as a young-earth creationist.

Second-hand. Show me in the emails where she actually claimed Sternberg was a YEC.

OTOH, it's interesting that a bunch of creationists would call such a claim slanderous.

809 posted on 09/10/2009 9:19:40 PM PDT by antiRepublicrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 808 | View Replies]

To: antiRepublicrat
A fact that the report glosses over because it was written for the consumption of ID backers.

You need the five dollars. You cast about your charges as if they mean something. The letters from the SI were not targeted at ID backers. And the report was not targeted at ID backers, it was targeted at the Smithsonian.

Santorum and Souder weren't ID backers?

Don't try strawmen arguments with me. You remain the liar.

Second-hand. Show me in the emails where she actually claimed Sternberg was a YEC.

OTOH, it's interesting that a bunch of creationists would call such a claim slanderous.

So you are calling Sues a liar? In any case, you continue to fail to read the report and the emails. This is a quote from Scott's email.

Regarding von Sternberg's views, he is, in fact a YEC.

OTOH, it's interesting that a bunch of creationists would call such a claim slanderous

No the word is " misinformation" You are weak.

810 posted on 09/11/2009 5:29:03 AM PDT by AndrewC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 809 | View Replies]

To: AndrewC
The letters from the SI were not targeted at ID backers.

Duh.

And the report was not targeted at ID backers

That's just false. What do you think a staff report is? It's written to tell a congresscritter what he wants to hear. Unless you want to try to say again that Souder and Santorum weren't ID backers.

Regarding von Sternberg's views, he is, in fact a YEC.

Either she's lying or she knows more than we do. You earlier even tried to say he's not an IDer.

No the word is " misinformation" You are weak.

Slanderous has been used in this case.

811 posted on 09/11/2009 6:39:40 AM PDT by antiRepublicrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 810 | View Replies]

To: antiRepublicrat
That's just false.

That's just your opinion. Which we know is worthless.

Either she's lying or she knows more than we do.

Well, do you believe her? You probably do. And I didn't try to say he was not an ID'er. I directly stated that I didn't think he was. You remember how James Shapiro got into the discussion? You seem to have the attention span of a rock.

Slanderous has been used in this case.

So has the word "is". I wasn't addressing either of those words. I was addressing your statement, "And I'm still trying to find evidence of any misinformation about him. Haven't found any yet, ".

812 posted on 09/11/2009 7:25:09 AM PDT by AndrewC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 811 | View Replies]

To: AndrewC
The ACLU was involved in both cases. You know them, they are the conservative legal group. /sarc

Indeed they are, and Clarence Darrow was the premiere conservative advocate of the land, as you can see here: In Defense of the Communists, Clarence Darrow.

813 posted on 09/16/2009 4:11:50 AM PDT by Ethan Clive Osgoode (<<== Click here to learn about Evolution!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 704 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 651-700701-750751-800801-813 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson