Bad Week for Creationism
A 1955 paper widely used by creationists as proof that life on Earth couldn’t have happened without Divine intervention has been retracted by the author, who did not like the fact that creationists were using his paper to fuel their arguments. According to The New York Times:
In January 1955, Homer Jacobson, a chemistry professor at Brooklyn College, published a paper called “Information, Reproduction and the Origin of Life” in American Scientist, the journal of Sigma Xi, the scientific honor society.
In it, Dr. Jacobson speculated on the chemical qualities of earth in Hadean time, billions of years ago when the planet was beginning to cool down to the point where, as Dr. Jacobson put it, “one could imagine a few hardy compounds could survive.”
Nobody paid much attention to the paper at the time, he said in a telephone interview from his home in Tarrytown, N.Y. But today it is winning Dr. Jacobson acclaim that he does not want — from creationists who cite it as proof that life could not have emerged on earth without divine intervention.
So after 52 years, he has retracted it.
Thanks to PZMyers over at Pharyngula for tipping us off.
One less resource from which the creationists can quote-mine from.
Professor Jacobson, isn’t claiming that his science was wrong or his conclusion incorrect, he is only with drawing the paper under pressure of followers of evolutionism. Prove positive that some scientist will march lock step with the supporters of evolutionism and change their tune when pressured.
That statement is absurd and ignorant. Somebody did not read the article. His paperwas about origin of life, not evolution, you ignorant bufoon.
He didn’t want to look bad.
.
.
.
.
Vance Ferrell, who said he put together the material posted on Evolution-facts.org, said he had no way of knowing what motivated Dr. Jacobson, but said that if scientists “look like they are pro-creationist they can get into trouble.”
Follow the link and actually read the article you filthy fangdort. Yes, you, bill.
Only after Professor Jacobson discovering that creationists were frequently citing the paper, did he take the time to review the paper, which he now claims, has multiple miscalculations.
He is not claiming the science was writing only his interpretation of it.
Ok everyone all together, about face, backward match, left, right, left, right.
once again attacking the person not the issues.
dale, you’re right, science has no clue as to how life started, therefore the only reasonable explanations are that live or science one doesn’t in actual fact exist.
elizabeth, thinks its a bad week for Creationist, because dog exist but life doesn’t.
he he he
The paper was published in the American Scientist, the journal of Sigma Xi, the scientific honor society. After decades of peer review Jacobson has bowed to the peer pressure and withdraws his paper because it supported an unpopular idea in science.
Liar.
All,
You can read the actual article and the words of Jacobson, himself to see that the troll is lying out his ass again, just as his cronies over at AIG do all the time. Here is the proof that bill lies and sitorts. He is very dishonest and unethical.
They have no evidence for their beliefs so they must lie and distort to try to justify their position. It has never worked and won’t now.
“It is not unusual for scientists to publish papers and, if they discover evidence that challenges them, to announce they were wrong. The idea that all scientific knowledge is provisional, able to be challenged and overturned, is one thing that separates matters of science from matters of faith.”–NYT
Keep up the good work bill. You are the unmitigated proof that creationists are liars.
If anyone has any doubt that the creationist’s tactics are to lie and distort, all you have to do is read this thread.
They lie with no compunction whatsoever.
This is possibly the most intellectual statement ever made in the existence of the universe. Stated by bill_the_Troll,
“……science has no clue as to how life started, therefore the only reasonable explanations are that live or science one doesn’t in actual fact exist.”
I am awed by that. I am not worthy. I am not worthy. Since I now know that “live or science” do not exist we must fall into complete submission to Ken Ham. I am not worthy! If I had only known all these years that live and science do not exist I would have partied more. I hate those missed opportunities.
Science does not exist- All hail the troll!!
Science does not exist- All hail the troll!!
Science does not exist- All hail the troll!!
Science does not exist- All fall down!!
lol
October 25th, 2007 at 2:24 pm
Bill_from_defcon Says:
dale, you’re right, science has no clue as to how life started, therefore the only reasonable explanations are that live or science one doesn’t in actual fact exist.
CT notice dale is attacking the person not the issues
HERE IS A DIRECT QUOTE FROM THE ARTICLE.
“So after 52 years, he has retracted it.
The retraction came about when, on a whim, Dr. Jacobson ran a search for his name on Google. At age 84 and after 20 years of retirement, “I wanted to see, what have I done in all these many years?” he said. “It was vanity. What can I tell you?”
END QUOTE
He did not review the paper because of the science, but because he discovered in was being quoted by people who believe in creation by God.
Fact, jacobson didn’t like the fact that his paper was being quoted by people who believe in creation by God.
http://www.americanscientist.org/template/AssetDetail/assetid/56234
Here is a small part of his request for a retraction
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
To the Editors:
In January 1955, American Scientist published my article, “Information, Reproduction and the Origin of Life” (Vol. 43, No. 1). I ask you to honor my request to retract two brief passages…
And ended with,
Retraction this untimely is not normally undertaken, but in this case I request it because of continued irresponsible contemporary use by creationists who have quoted my not merely out-of-context, but incorrect, statements, to support their dubious viewpoint. I am deeply embarrassed to have been the originator of such misstatements, allowing bad science to have come into the purview of those who use it for anti-science ends.
Homer Jacobson
Brooklyn College
The City University of New York
Homer admits that the retraction was requested because of its use by creationists.
HOWEVER, other scientist have supported Homer’s finding, therefore refuting Homers retraction.
If a person is lying and I call him a liar, it is not attacking the poerson. It is telling it the way it is, and bill is lying.
He has no concept of logic. He has been making irrational assumptions.
He’s lying again. He retracted it because creationists were abusing it just like bill is abusing his article now. I think he actually thinks he’s foolng someone.
Lying and distorting.
bill’s making a damn fool of himself once again. I think he’s proud of it.
Everybody can see he is grossly distorting the quotes, just as little Hammites are trained to do.
The retraction was not requested you liar. Why are you lying?
Here we have a lying, distorting creationist live and in color. Watch him self destruct.
“Happy Belated Birthday, Earth”
” I know, it’s late. Bishop Ussher famously calculated that the earth began on October 23, 4004 BC and we skeptics have been having fun with that for decades now. The Austin, Texas Center for Inquiry chapter threw a birthday party that included Noah’s Floodwater Punch and Flat Earth Cake. What do you get for a planet?”
Ed Brayton
Science is a self correcting process. As discoveries are made and as new evidence is uncovered, sometimes scientists need to re-examine previously held ideas and earlier publications based upon those ideas. As was reported in this case concerning Dr. Jacobson, he determined that 1) his paper was being misrepresented by creationists and 2) there were errors in that publication. As reported in the NY Times article:
As the article concluded, it is not unusual for scientists to retract papers when errors are discovered; if anything, it is a sign of academic integrity.
Sometimes in science, the reverse happens. A hypothesis is forwarded that challenges the conventional wisdom of the time and the scientist offering such a hypothesis finds that he or she cannot get their ideas taken seriously or published. I am not talking about Intelligent Design, but rather a different chapter in human evolution, the Taung baby. The below was written on Ed Brayton’s Dispatches from the Culture Wars blog, and discusses the history behind this fossil find and how this discovery was handled by Professor Raymond Dart. I let everyone read the article themselves, which describes just how difficult it was for Professor Dart to ultimately become vindicated and have is discovery accepted. It is well worth the read.
http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2007/10/reaction_to_rejection_in_scien.php
What I find the most interesting is how this article is summarized at the end.
Simply put, Intelligent Design/Creationism is nothing but a bunch of religious hot air; because its advocates have nothing.
Now, That is a rational and honest evaluation of the situation.
Thanks once again, Tony.
Tony, excellent analysis…Well said!
Ahh, dale, did you just display a temper tantrum?
Lou,
Yes.
I do get a bit excitable when I realize it is people like bill, our resident troll, that want to teach their fractured logic in our public schools when it has been judicated to be unconstitutional.
Do you wanna fight about it Lou? I’ll fight ya.
What are you saying, Lou? You think bill’s screed has merit? Hmmmmm?
dale - take a pill. bill represents the desparation of the wayward right wing. Unitl he actually threatens someone physically (which I seriously doubt he would do), there is literally nothing he can do to harm any of us. Obviously, the boycott is over because it turns out that most people are skipping over his posts anyway.
Everything the creationists do becomes fodder for comediens. At best, they are annoying like flies at a picnic. At worst, they are sociopathic liars that need to be committed for being a danger to themselves and all they try to take down with them. Their ignorance is vile and despicable. They will be left behind.
CT’
Please don’t bother me. I am am spending several minutes in prayer and supplication to my god in support of the Sox.
Specifically, CS…the man. He is pitching against god tonight, don’t you know?
Please drop to your knees with me?
This is the pivitol game bx god and those heathen Red Sox.
The winner of this World Series will determine the fate of the entire universe. Get with the program there, friend.
CT, great representation. I love the references you evoked!
Creationists/ Comedic Fodder- Priceless. Better than paying to get in to a Seinfield show, especially since he is now a scientologist……..
October 25th, 2007 at 4:34 pm
dale Says:
The retraction was not requested you liar. Why are you lying?
WHAT??? DID YOU MISS THE PURPOSE OF THIS THREAD???
http://www.americanscientist.org/template/AssetDetail/assetid/56234
Here is a small part of his request for a retraction
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
To the Editors:
In January 1955, American Scientist published my article, “Information, Reproduction and the Origin of Life” (Vol. 43, No. 1). I ask you to honor my request to retract…
DALE, please explain to everyone how a “request to retract” is NOT a request for a retraction.
Dale, was this any honest mistake or an act of dishonesy???
an honest mistake?
He said, “honor MY” request to retract
You are one goofy son of a bitch.
He did not retract at the bequest of anybody else no matter what you do to try to make it so.
here is what i posted,
http://www.americanscientist.org/template/AssetDetail/assetid/56234
Here is a small part of his request for a retraction
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
To the Editors:
In January 1955, American Scientist published my article, “Information, Reproduction and the Origin of Life” (Vol. 43, No. 1). I ask you to honor my request to retract two brief passages…
This is HIS request for a retraction of his article.
dale, its sound like your confused AGAIN.
Apparently, there are at least two people, maybe more, who are posting under dale’s name.
One tries to impress everyone with big words, while the second one seemingly can’t read.
DALE, please explain to everyone how a “request to retract” is NOT a request for a retraction.
Jacobson requested the publication American Scientist to retract two passages of his January 1955 article.
That is why I posted HIS letter making the request.
Quote,
To the Editors: In January 1955, American Scientist published my article, “Information, Reproduction and the Origin of Life” (Vol. 43, No. 1). I ask you to honor my request to retract…
I understand that while watching the ball game you may have misread the statement, but now, you have the chance to admit your mistake and admit that your statement.
“The retraction was not requested you liar.” Was a mistake and yes
the retraction was requested by Jacobson.
Tic, tic
FILE UNDER: WHAT’S WRONG WITH THIS PICTURE
October 25th, 2007 at 2:01 pm
Bill_from_defcon Says:
Professor Jacobson, isn’t claiming that his science was wrong or his conclusion incorrect, he is only with drawing the paper under pressure of followers of evolutionism. Prove positive that some scientist will march lock step with the supporters of evolutionism and change their tune when pressured.
_______________
That was a 2 pm. Then post this next:
October 25th, 2007 at 3:43 pm
Bill_from_defcon Says:
He did not review the paper because of the science, but because he discovered in was being quoted by people who believe in creation by God.
_____________________
then at 4:02 pm
Bill_from_defcon Says: ,
“I [Jacobson] am deeply embarrassed to have been the originator of such misstatements, allowing bad science to have come into the purview of those who use it for anti-science ends.”
_________
And then for icing on the cake:
October 25th, 2007 at 9:22 pm
Bill_from_defcon Says:
dale, its sound like your confused AGAIN.
——————————-
Thanks for the laughs, bill. Makes watching the Red Sox tolerable.
What was so appalling (yet totally predictable) was that those creationist wackos were quoting what Jacobson himself called “bad science” and bill tries to turn the whole thing around.
Two other quotes bill conveniently failed to mention from the same letter from Jacobson:
“I have several reasons for retracting the statements. For the first passage, use of the requirement of simultaneity was a conjecture, unsupported by any proof.”
“The second passage refers only to an attempt to calculate the probability that a single molecule of a particular amino acid could spontaneously form from its components. The calculation was irrelevant…”
So, bill — to review. Jacobson says he had several reasons to retract his statements. I just listed two. In addition, Jacobson referred to his own paper as “bad science” and finally, and the reason why he retracted the statements now….because a bunch of fundie hacks were taking his “science” out of context and misusing to for their own bent agenda.
end of topic
Dr Jacobsen retracted his paper because it was laden with errors .
Something Theisis are incapable of recognizing in their errant myth texts!
Tony, you’re right, Science is a self correcting process.
It’s not science I have a problem with.
Jacobson REQUESTED American Scientist to honor his request to retract the article in question
http://www.americanscientist.org/template/AssetDetail/assetid/56234
Here is a small part of his request for a retraction
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
To the Editors:
In January 1955, American Scientist published my article, “Information, Reproduction and the Origin of Life” (Vol. 43, No. 1). I ask you to honor my request to retract two brief passages…
Jacobson admitted that the fact that creationist used his work is what upset him.
test
October 25th, 2007 at 10:22 pm
C.T. Says:
Two other quotes bill conveniently failed to mention from the same letter from Jacobson:
If I had posted the entire letter people will have screamed that I should only post the section I was talking about.
If I had post only the section I am talking about people scream that I’m “conveniently failed to mention” parts.
here is the letter that CT conveniently failed to mention parts of.
To the Editors:
In January 1955, American Scientist published my article, “Information, Reproduction and the Origin of Life” (Vol. 43, No. 1). I ask you to honor my request to retract two brief passages, as follows:
On page 121: “Directions for the reproduction of plans, for energy and the extraction of parts from the current environment, for the growth sequence, and for the effector mechanisms translating instructions into growth—all had to be simultaneously present at that moment [of life’s birth].”
present at that moment [of life’s birth].”
On page 125: “From the probability standpoint, the ordering of the present environment into a single amino acid molecule would be utterly improbable in all the time and space available for the origin of terrestrial life.”
I have several reasons for retracting the statements. For the first passage, use of the requirement of simultaneity was a conjecture, unsupported by any proof. Separate developments of partial structures might well have occurred in an environment of randomly reacting molecules, eventually to join into one or more self-reproducing structures.
The second passage refers only to an attempt to calculate the probability that a single molecule of a particular amino acid could spontaneously form from its components. The calculation was irrelevant, as it was based on an endothermic change during an imaginary spontaneous conversion of a mixture of component atoms and molecules into glycine under adiabatic and standard
why am I being censored
quote;
“…but in this case I request it because of continued irresponsible contemporary use by creationists ”
end quote
I’m not being allowed to quote the whole letter, I’m being censored.
because of continued,,, use by creationists
because of continued,,, use by creationists
because of continued,,, use by creationists
because of continued,,, use by creationists
because of continued,,, use by creationists
because of continued,,, use by creationists
because of continued,,, use by creationists
because of continued,,, use by creationists
because of continued,,, use by creationists
because of continued,,, use by creationists
dale use this multi use thing earlier. he he he
Homer Jacobson can spin his request for a retraction anyway he wants.
He admits he REQUESTED THE RETRACTION because of continued,,, use by creationists.
NOW it is the end of the topic.
dale, please noticed how CT is able to battle what I claimed with out attacking me personally.
CT notice how dale will not be able to respond without attacking me.
OK prove it.
October 23rd, 2007 at 6:56 pm
Bill_from_defcon Says:
Those so called fundie nutcases are MAIN STREAM AMERICA.
- Bill_from_defcon
October 23rd, 2007 at 8:11 pm
dale Says:
That, sir, is a bald faced lie, and I can prove it beyond a shadow of a doubt.
OK prove it.
OK prove it.
OK prove it.
OK prove it.
OK prove it.
dale, remember,
Anger is a wind which blows out the lamp of the mind.
Robert Green Ingersoll
tic, tic, tic, tic, tic, tic, tic, tic, tic, tic, tic, tic, tic, tic.
Retraction this untimely is not normally undertaken, but in this case I request it because of continued irresponsible contemporary use by creationists who have quoted my NOT MERELY OUT-OF-CONTEXT,BUT INCORRECT STATEMENTS, to support their dubious viewpoint. I am deeply embarrassed to have been the originator of such MISSTATEMENTS, ALLOWING BAD SCIENCE to have come into the purview of those who use it for anti-science ends. (all emphasis courtesy C.T.)
Homer Jacobson
Brooklyn College
The City University of New York
Obviously, his motivation was embarrassment that his science was not accurate, compounded by the fact that a bunch of delusional creationists forced his hand — in other words, if those fanatics hadn’t distorted his findings, he probably never would have admitted that the science was flawed.
bill - dale is entitled to answer anyone any way he sees fit. To be honest, I stopped attacking you because dale does it so much more succinctly than I.
Ok, that wasn’t completely honest. Actually, I stopped because some people pointed out how unproductive it was and I agreed.
October 26th, 2007 at 12:29 am
C.T. Says:
,,,To be honest,
according to dale and big al people only say “To be honest” when they are lying, hmmm???
dale, tic, tic, tic.
IT’s ok CT is speaking for you now that you can’t, funny that.
hey dale, you’re right, he was lying. lol
October 26th, 2007 at 12:32 am
C.T. Says:
Ok, that wasn’t completely honest…
bill - I know you thought you were being funny, but……you’re acting like a tabloid magazine that cuts and pastes, distorts and manipulates, apparently for the amusement of mindless idiots with nothing to do.
At least you stopped carrying on about Jacobson. Now if you’d just admit that creationism is a crock, we could all move on to more productive discussions.
Sorry bill. You make no sense whatsoever.
I am beginning to think that bill is actually Ken Ham’s sock puppet. If you look at Ham’s recent writings, he is becoming more sophomoric by the minute,
It matters not though because there is not one person ever on this site that has agreed with bill. Not. one. person.
Funny, that.
One ignorant pitiful son of a bitch.
bill is Ken Ham. There is no other conclusion that makes sense, and there is no one else that would take such offense to this site. bill is actually two people. I have never read anything so infantile in my whole life, except on Ken Ham’s AIG site.
Thanks for dropping by Ken. You have sure dicredited yourself much better than I ever could.
Just scroll on by, folks.
Bad week for the Rockies.
God must have fallen asleep in the eigth inning when Left fielder Matt Holliday singled with two outs in the eighth, representing the tying run. With cleanup hitter Todd Helton at the plate, though, Sox pitcher Papelbon caught Holliday leaning the other way and easily picked him off. They should have prayed a bit more.
“We truly do have something going on here. And God’s using us in a powerful way.”
– Keli McGregor, Colorado Rockies club president
“One ex-player said team officials inspected the lockers to ensure players weren’t hiding “Playboy” magazines or other immoral contraband on the premises.” Fundy nutwads are all about control.
“League of Fans reports that the Rockies received a $161 million subsidy from Colorado taxpayers to build Coors Field, which opened in 1995. It’s doubtful those taxpayers knew they were supporting a private organization whose membership would be restricted to Christian extremists.”
http://www.pensitoreview.com/2007/10/24/colorado-rockies-only-hire-players-who-are-born-again-christians/
No Jews, Muslims, or Agnostics allowed!
The Colorado Rockies are a hate group.
Let them know how you feel. They probably also broke the law by making the statement that they were recruiting born again christians, but it’s all hushed up just now.
dale wants to turn The USA into a God Free Zone.
too bad its not working.
put up or shut up
October 25th, 2007 at 11:54 pm
Bill_from_defcon Says:
OK prove it.
October 23rd, 2007 at 6:56 pm
Bill_from_defcon Says:
Those so called fundie nutcases are MAIN STREAM AMERICA.
- Bill_from_defcon
October 23rd, 2007 at 8:11 pm
dale Says:
That, sir, is a bald faced lie, and I can prove it beyond a shadow of a doubt.
OK prove it.
OK prove it.
still waiting,
I understand that while watching the ball game you may have misread the statement, but now, you have the chance to admit your mistake and admit that your statement.
“The retraction was not requested you liar.” Was a mistake and yes
the retraction was requested by Jacobson.
Tic, tic
oh, and rabbit eat their own poop, too.
October 25th, 2007 at 10:46 pm
yah Says:
Dr Jacobsen retracted his paper because it was laden with errors .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
yah, he only retracted to points.
The two points that supported creation.
other scientist have supported these claims. wonderful that.
Homer Jacobson wrote, “Retraction this untimely is not normally undertaken, but in this case I request it because of continued irresponsible contemporary use by creationists…”
Of course the word irresponsible means proGod.
dale Says:
It matters not though because there is not one person ever on this site that has agreed with bill. Not. one. person.
October 25th, 2007 at 7:52 pm
dale Says:
What are you saying, Lou? You think bill’s screed has merit? Hmmmmm?
Now, thats funny!!!
There is a lot of buzz on the blogoshere about how the Discovery Institute is absolutely frantic about Ben Stein’s new movie, “Expelled.”
They were happy about it at first but now they have realized that Stein (and Bill O’reilly) are mangling the DI’s definition of Intelligent Design.
It was proven at the Dover trial that ID is merely creationism in disguise, but the Discovery Institute adamantly denies that. Now Stein is interviewed by O’rielly and they both state that ID is the work of a Diety. This is very funny.
The creationists become more of a bickering bunch of boneheads every day.
You’d think that god would be a unifying force rather than a divisive one.
Even more interesting is that Demski from the Discovery Institute cannot actually define the term “design” as it would apply to creation of life and/ or evolution, because who would this designer be?
It gets even better. Now, since the DI wants to try to explain design without a designer, guess what they end up with? Natural Selection. Deeper and deeper they dig their hole.
What has happened is that we started out with biblical creationists. They tried to teach the bible and creationism in the schools. Once they found out that wasn’t going to work (unconstitutional) they decided to “Wedge” their god stuff into the schools with Intelligent Design and leaving the bible and god’s name out of it. Of course if they could have gained traction and got it inserted into the schools they would have said, Just kidding, the designer must be….god!
The next step? “Teach the controversy.” What controversy? If they say the controversy is that some people believe there was a designer, oops, that won’t work. It will be interesting to see what ill-fated stragedy they might come up with next.
There are only about thirty million evangelical fundy christians out there and the moderate christians who are mainstream America are now starting to tire of the fundies making them look like loonies.
the retraction was requested by Jacobson.
Tic, tic
oh, and rabbit eat their own poop, too.
“Professor Jacobson, isn’t claiming that his science was wrong or his conclusion incorrect, he is only with drawing the paper under pressure of followers of evolutionism.” bill’s first lie of the thread.
There are about 30 million that “say” they are fundamentalists- Hardly main stream.
There are 75 million Americans that have no religious beliefs.
bill states “isn’t claiming his science was wrong” Lie.
bill states “he is only withdrawing the paper under pressure of followers of evolutionism.” Lie #2
So Jacobson isn’t claiming his science is wrong?
He said, ““Ouch,” Dr. Jacobson said. “It was hideous.”
“Things grew worse when he reread his paper, he said, because he discovered errors.”
bill is outright bald faced lying and I have proven it.
His [Jacobson’s] letter shows, Ms. Reid wrote, “the distinction between a scientist who cannot let error stand, no matter the embarrassment of public correction,” and people who “cling to dogma.”
October 25th, 2007 at 2:01 pm
Bill_from_defcon Says:
Professor Jacobson, isn’t claiming that his science was wrong [Lie] or his conclusion incorrect, [Lie] he is only with drawing the paper under pressure of followers of evolutionism.[Lie] Prove positive [It is proof of nothing] that some scientist will march lock step with the supporters of evolutionism and change their tune when pressured. [lie- he was not pressured. The paper was written in ‘55]
But don’t worry. The sorry assed lying quote mining distortionists will continue to use it. I am sure of that.
dale, enough already. I think you’ve proven beyond a doubt that bill was off-base on this one. let it go, bro.
besides…you’re just mad dem injuns iz gettin’ they azzes spanked. As a Yankee fan, this is h a r d …..for me…………to…….even………say……….but (gulp)……….the Red Sux (sorry Alba - p.s. we miss you) …..are the better team (there - I said it)….this year. (damn, that hurts).
You’ll be OK, CT.
I hear you’re getting a new manager next week. There won’t be any pressure on him!
I spoke too soon. I was wrong.
October 25th, 2007 at 2:01 pm
Bill_from_defcon Says:
Professor Jacobson, isn’t claiming that his science was wrong or his conclusion incorrect, he is only with drawing the paper under pressure of followers of evolutionism. Prove positive that some scientist will march lock step with the supporters of evolutionism and change their tune when pressured.
+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+__
When Professor Jacobson discovered his work was being used by “creationist sites that have taken up his 1955 paper as scientific support for their views” of creation he became upset, His reaction is reported to have been, “It was hideous.” It is also reported “Dr. Jacobson said he was dismayed to think that people might use his work in what he called “malignant” denunciations of Darwin.”
He became so upset that he decided to review his paper; upon which he now claims he discovered 2 mistakes. Interestedly the 2 mistakes had to do with the “malignant” denunciations of Darwin.”
I was wrong in my 2:01 post; Professor Jacobson did claim that his science was wrong and his conclusion incorrect. I spoke too soon. However I corrected my mistake in my 2:17 pm post, which some people seemed to have overlooked.
________________________________
At 2:17 pm I said, Only after Professor Jacobson discovering that creationists were frequently citing the paper, did he take the time to review the paper, which he now claims, has multiple miscalculations.
He is not claiming the science was [wrong] only his interpretation of it.
________________________________
I still take the position that his decision had little to do with the assumptions he made in his paper and here is why.
This paper of Professor Jacobson’s had stood the test of time. After being used to support creation for 52 years, NOT ONE scientist came out to even question any of his work. For 52 years his paper was being reviewed by pro-creationist and pro-evolutionist scientist and NO ONE questioned his claims. Professor Jacobson did not review his paper because someone had called it into question but because he learned that his findings actually proved the impossibility of life just happening by accident, and because of that it was being used to support creation by a deity.
In HIS letter to the editor where HE ask for HIS PAPER to be retracted he even admitted, “I request it because of continued irresponsible contemporary use by creationists who have quoted m[e] not merely out-of-context, but incorrect, statements, to support their dubious viewpoint.”
It is clear to see that the professor retracted his paper because, as a supporter of evolutionism he was embarrassed that his work could used as scientific support for the need of a deity to be “present at that moment [of life’s birth].”
If the science is wrong, the paper is irrelevent, just as you are wrong and irrelevent, making your assinine assumptions.
Paleontologist, Richard Leakey stated:
‘Biologists would dearly like to know how modern apes, modern humans and the various ancestral hominids have evolved from a common ancestor. Unfortunately, the fossil record is somewhat incomplete as far as the hominids are concerned, and it is all but blank for the apes. The best we can hope for is that more fossils will be found over the next few years which will fill the present gaps in the evidence.’
**** The author goes on to say: ‘David Pilbeam [a well-known expert in human evolution] comments wryly, “If you brought in a smart scientist from another discipline and showed him the meager evidence we’ve got he’d surely say, ‘forget it: there isn’t enough to go on’.
Richard E. Leakey, The Making of Mankind, Michael Joseph Limited, London, 1981, p. 43
Dr. David Pilbeam is a Paleoanthropologist who received his Ph.D. at Yale University. In 2002 he was awarded a Docteur Honoris Causa from the Universite’ de Poitiers. Pilbeam is currently Professor of Social Sciences at Harvard University and Curator of Paleontology at the Peabody Museum.
bill is at his totally dishonest quotemines again.
The moment I saw the name Pilbeam I knew it was quote mine time again.
I know well of Pilbeam because he was one of a group of scientists that discovered a nearly complete skull of Sivapithecus indicus, an extinct Late Miocene great ape in 1979. He was a close associate of Leaky. I was not aware of that until I was taking a course in anthropology in 1985.
All that bill says about Pilbeam’s credentials are true. That alone would beg the question, why would Leaky say something like that?
Here is how that quote mine and distortions came to be.
bill starts out his obviously copied and pasted comment by saying that “Richard Leaky stated…”
Then we have the R Leaky quote.
Now the deception.
bill states, “**** The author goes on to say: ‘David Pilbeam [a well-known expert in human evolution comments wryly, “If you brought in a smart scientist from another discipline and showed him the meager evidence we’ve got he’d surely say, ‘forget it: there isn’t enough to go on’. Of course not, because other disciplines do not have the training and experience to understand it. Rchard E. Leakey, The Making of Mankind, Michael Joseph Limited, London, 1981, p. 43″
Those who twist words to try to discredit their detractors are quite good at it. But will never be good enough to stand the test.
The quote miner that bill does not mention here, but who’s material he is copying and pasting is none other than David M. Menton.
David M.Menton is…….*****drum roll***** A psychophant of Ken Ham, and a contributor to AIG, a failed scientist crackpot.
Menton uses this quote mine in all his talks but has never done any real research himself:
“Menton then tried to further discredit evolution by presenting quotes from various paleontologists that were supposedly indicative of their doubts about the basic tenets of evolution. An example is one quote from David Pilbeam, who was a protege of the venerable Richard Leakey, who said: [This is why it is apparent that Leaky would never actually say that about Pilbeam]
If you brought in a smart scientist from another discipline and showed him the meagre evidence we’ve got he’d surely say, “forget it; there isn’t enough to go on.”
“What Menton left out, however, was the complete context, which is more esoteric. The quote was in reference to a discussion about the specific branching of hominoids that occurred previous to the Australopithecine era of Lucy, and was not meant as a broad indictment of evolution in general as Menton implied. Pilbeam said, and I quote at length because the issue is nuanced:
Of the primates, the chimpanzee is man’s closest relative, while the two other great apes, the gorilla and orangutan, are slightly more distant evolutionary cousins. The apes and hominids are collectively known as the ‘hominoids’. Biologists would dearly like to know how modern apes, modern humans and the various ancestral hominids have evolved from a common ancestor. Unfortunately, the fossil record is somewhat incomplete as far as the hominids are concerned, and it is all but blank for the apes. The best we can hope for is that more fossils will be found over the next few years which will fill the present gaps in the evidence. The major gap, often referred to as ‘the fossil void’, is between eight and four million years ago.
David Pilbeam comments wryly, ‘If you brought in a smart scientist from another discipline and showed him the meagre evidence we’ve got he’d surely say, “forget it; there isn’t enough to go on”.’ Neither David nor others involved in the search for mankind can take this advice, of course, but we remain fully aware of the dangers of drawing conclusions from the evidence that is so incomplete…. Fortunately, there is quite good evidence regarding the ape-like creatures that lived over fourteen million years ago […] ”
And,The debate was about when chimps and humans branched from a common ancestor, not whether ape-like ancestors were present in both hominoids’ lineage. As one writer points out: “A discussion follows [by Pilbeam] of the extensive fossil evidence of dryopithecinces and ramapithecines, biochemical estimates of the date of divergence of humans and chimps, a discussion of the rise of bi-pedalism, and David Pilbeam’s estimates of the branching times for the various groups of hominoids. That’s just chapter three (”Ape-Like Ancestors”). Chapter four (”The Early Hominids”) picks up on the near side of the fossil gap referred to in the quote.” To paint Pilbeam as equivocating about evolutionary principles is disingenuous at best.
So, this quote mining exercise is brought to you by Answers In Genesis, the most non- scientific bunch of ass wipes that you will find, ala, bill
bill is busted once again. He is shown to have lied extensively and now trying to subversively inject Ken Ham’s sychophants into the argument.
BUSTED.
Thank you bill for further discrediting AIG. I am very appreciated of your fractured logic and outright lies.
If bill_the_troll thinks he is going to think that he is going to use Pilbeam to discredit evolution, he is out of his fuc*king mind.
Pilbeam is, as bill states “Dr. David Pilbeam is a Paleoanthropologist who received his Ph.D. at Yale University. In 2002 he was awarded a Docteur Honoris Causa from the Universite’ de Poitiers. Pilbeam is currently Professor of Social Sciences at Harvard University and Curator of Paleontology at the Peabody Museum.”
If he thinks he got there by discrediting evolution then bill needs to get some serious counseling.
All of Pilbeam’s work over all those years and they have that one quote mine. You can see that they are totally desparate.
As a big Leakey family fan since my teens, I resent any distortions of their science. Bill, tread carefully, you are entering territory that may well swallow you whole.
dale - I guess I don’t really mind if they give the job to Mattingly, but I am a little pissed off that they didn’t give Joe T.an offer he couldn’t refuse. He deserves to go out on top. A-Rod is good — but not THAT good. I’d trade him for a couple of top-shelf pitchers in a heartbeat. If Posada and Rivera go, it’ll be a while before I expect to see a pennant.
1 Corinthians 15:1-6 (King James Version)
1Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand;
2By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain.
3For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;
4And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:
5And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve:
6After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep.
“Christ died on the cross” Is not the gospel. Those two thieves died on a cross.
The good news is not that Christ died for us. Soldiers have died for us.
The gospel is that Christ died for our sins, paid the debt in full, rose again and was seen by hundreds.
Sin is the bottom line problem. He was dying for your sins and mine. The debt has been paid in full! Now that is good news. The only reason I will not go to hell is Christ for all of my sins paid the debt in full and rose again and was seen by hundreds, the proof he was risen from the dead.
Hi C.T.!
Go Sox!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Hi, Alba. What can I say? It’s their year.
bill - I read your last post. the fact that you cleave to that myth is too pitiful for words. you really are such a sad and lonely guy, aren’t you. the world has nothing for you, does it? all your hopes and dreams are pinned to your little jesus myth. i’m glad it brings you comfort. i don’t wish you any harm. i just wish you’d sew your seeds and spread your manure in your own backyard. you’ve become a real pest here. it’s almost as if you think god has called you to preach the gospel to defcon. well, i asked, and he said you were suppossed to learn sign language and preach to deaf convicts. i think you need to get your hearing checked.
Some fool said: “Soldiers have died for us.”
Soldiers have died for the greed and power of SOME. I do not consider myself in the US. Get a grip on reality. Then you’ll know why our soldiers have died. It WAS NOT for a noble cause.
It IS not for a noble cause.
and how tragic is that?
Shakesperian tragedy, indeed.
WWJB?
(Who Would Jesus Bomb?)
The soldiers, tragically, died are are continuing to die, to enrichen Cheney’s friends in companies like Halliburton and Blackwater.
LOLOLOLOL
CT who is your God???
CT claims to have prayed and is now hearing voices just like dale.
Ct claims, “well, i asked, and he said”, CT how often do you hear this god of yours talking to you.
Please go ahead and claim Christians hear Gods voice so you can add to the credibility of pray. You are sooooo ez.
October 27th, 2007 at 12:30 am
I see AL is still preaching her Christophobia.
made ya look.
Michael Savage
Christophobia: U.N.’s War on Christianity
http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2001/2/1/181741.shtml
CHRISTOPHOBIA
IS JESUS DRIVING LIBERALS NUTS
By: Richard Davis
“If you were a foreigner learning about the United States through our books and media you would think American culture was dominated by Christianity and that the country was virtually in the hands of Christian hardliners. If you then moved to America, even to a primordial red state, you’d soon be left wondering…”
…is Bush any more of a Christian president than was Jimmy Carter, the left‘s…
http://www.etherzone.com/2007/davis021607.shtml
Carter upheld the constitution while practicing his christian values, while Bush upholds fundamental christian values at the expense of the constitution.
Carter understood that the establishment clause is the reason we have religious freedom.
Bush wants to shove fundamentalist xtian values down everybodies throats.
bill has not a clue when someone uses the rhetorical device called metaphor, or when someone makes a facetious remark. It is beyond his comprehension that they are…kidding around. Being a bible literalist, he must be a literalist in every way.
There is a fellow within our social circle that is like that, and, of course, everybody rolls their eyes when he does it. It gets old,,real fast.
It is sohphomoric and counter intelligent. People that take others cynical remarks as fact show themselves to be very immature.
Grow the fu*k up.
bill is like a bird with only one wing. He will never fly.
He is like a one armed wallpaper hanger…….
like a one legged man in an ass kicking contest…..
…an impotent gigolo….
Good post, Dale @ 4:14. This is precisely the reason I have respect for Jimmy Carter. He was, however, too naive to be president.
As far as Bill, I was “on vacation” and a boycott was in place. The new slogan is Scroll the Troll. Are you on board?
Alba,
My allegiance to any group-agreement as per the troll is non-existant. I call it as I see it.
I do notice that the Sox have a man on first and second with two outs in the first inning.
Since you have been away it has come out that the Rockies are god’s team, so, the implications are obvious.
I am really happy to hear that you are in the new place. I hope it works very well for you.
I was wondering how bad you were Jonesing without your net service for a few days?
Alba,
The naive comment- very true.
Ouch. No score for the Sox in the first inning. Two men stranded.
The Sox got “Fogged.”
I have been almost three weeks without my computer and was holding out OK at first. I cannot deny the withdrawl symptoms that took place, and had 600 emails to delete when I finally got back on. It was a sorry situation.
Sorry to hear about your friend. I have also received some bad news about my Dad. (About six weeks left.) I guess you can’t ride high all the time.
I do hope, however, that he will watch the Sox achieve victory once again before he goes.
As for that last inning, the fat lady hasn’t sung yet…but she will.
She’s starting to sing, Dale…
October 26th, 2007 at 11:50 pm
C.T. Says:
bill - …it’s almost as if you think god has called you to preach the gospel to defcon. well, i asked, and he said you were suppossed to learn sign language and preach to deaf convicts. i think you need to get your hearing checked.
October 27th, 2007 at 12:06 pm
Bill_from_defcon Says:
LOLOLOLOL
CT who is your God???
CT claims to have prayed and is now hearing voices just like dale… CT how often do you hear this god of yours talking to you. Please go ahead and claim Christians hear Gods voice so you can add to the credibility of pray. You are sooooo ez.
_______________
That was about as stupid a response to my tongue-in-cheek comment that God told me that bill is an idiot, that there is no need for God to say it. Anybody who can read can see that bill ain’t got a clue. Oy vey!
Go Sox
facetious remark???
dale Says:
bill has not a clue when someone uses the rhetorical device called metaphor, or when someone makes a facetious remark…
.
.
.
That’s right roach, I have no clue as to what a facetious remark is, for example when I posted this,
October 25th, 2007 at 2:24 pm Bill_from_defcon Says: dale, you’re right, science has no clue as to how life started, therefore the only reasonable explanations are that live or science one doesn’t in actual fact exist.
Of course you knew that it was a facetious remark, which explains the following post by you.
October 25th, 2007 at 3:13 pm
dale Says:
This is possibly the most intellectual statement ever made in the existence of the universe. Stated by bill_the_Troll,
“……science has no clue as to how life started, therefore the only reasonable explanations are that live or science one doesn’t in actual fact exist.”
I am awed by that. I am not worthy. I am not worthy. Since I now know that “live or science” do not exist we must fall into complete submission to Ken Ham. I am not worthy! If I had only known all these years that live and science do not exist I would have partied more. I hate those missed opportunities.
Science does not exist- All hail the troll!! Science does not exist- All hail the troll!! Science does not exist- All hail the troll!!
Science does not exist- All fall down!!
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Yes cockroach, I’m the one who doesn’t understand what a facetious remark is.
Sometimes dale is just to ez. He he he.
L
L,
You wouldn’t even know how to spell facetious had it not been spelled out for you. Did you look it up, just to be sure your could actually define it?
Just scrolling by the troll one day…
In the merry merry month of….October.
bill is lying again.
He spent two days incessantly copy pasting the same shit over and over again about science has no evidence for the imagination. He is absolutely absurd- Busted again asshole.
Now he tries to squirm out of his absurd remark. He’s done this many times. he is soooo busted.
By the way, science has some really good clues as to how life started, so that is also a lie.
And,even if bill meant to say what he did, it would be an equally stupid thing to say because tongue in cheek remarks are made to people that will know they are tongue in cheek remarks. In bills case, of course he is so absurd that everyone here would have no reason to believe he was kidding and he knows it very well. Busted.
Alba : Sorry to hear about your dad. I lost mine 3&1/2 years ago. My thoughts are with you.
I am compelled to contemplate if trolls like bill are actually voyeuristic masochists who love to be verbally abused?
“Oh, please, castigate myfractured logic again. (ouch) More…more…(ouch) …more!”
I mean, where else could the pervs get this kind of quality abuse on demand?
yup — a bad week for creationism (and creationists).
Thanks yahweh.My feeling is that there is probably no amount of time passed that makes it any easier. My thoughts are with you, too.
Dale, I have often thought almost identical thoughts about trolls and masochism. (But that must make you a sadist, because you have more fun torturing than scrolling by the ignoramus
)
Albatross and Dale…I have a kinky side…and maybe regarding what motivates our little troll, maybe…welll…
Never mind.
Alba : have you ever read the book “How we Die”?
It’s by an eminent harvard Dr.
It looks at the various death processes in a rational manner, yet I found it comforting in that it affirms that we all, too, must pass that way(in one manner or another).
‘So live that when THY summons comes
to join that innumerable caravan
which moves to that mysterious realm
where each shall find his chamber
in the silent halls of death,
THOU go NOT like a quarry slave
scourged at night to his dungeon:
But sustained and soothed
by an unfaltering trust,
approach THY grave
like one who wraps the drapery
of his couch about him
and lies down to pleasant dreams.”
Alba and Don,
I am definitely not a physical sadist. Inflicting physical pain on someone is a revolting thought and the older I get the more revolting the idea becomes.
Having said that, I do feel very compelled to mock, humiliate, castigate, ridicule, belittle or inflict any other type of mental abuse I can think of on any religious person that wants to take over our government or suvert the constitution, especially the first ammendment, especially if he thinks the bible is totally inerrent. That is my hotspot. I don’t think that most of these people realize the positive effect the first ammendment has had on keeping us free in all ways.
When you mix religion and politics, politics always dominates religion. Politics corrupts religion. Our constitution is our written guarantee that we can each practice any religion or non religion with impunity. You cannot govern people by use of the bible.
Also, I have found, in my experience, that a large number of people who take their comfort in the religion they were born in to sorely lack critical thinking skills, and worse yet, they do not know it, so I take my stand knowing that I may be annoying some moderate christians, but they will get over it.
That’s my story and I’m sticking to it! Of course, you guys knew all that !
Now,
Don! Don’t. Even. Think. About. It!
This may or may not be the appropriate time to say this, but I’m going to anyway.
I always feel most comfortable speaking from my own experience and ideas.
Being older has many advantages, one of them being that one has seen patterns repeat themselves over the years and certain things start making sense.
The other is that at my age, I can say that I have had a darn good time of life (along with all the attendant trials and tribulations.) The kids are raised up, out on their own, happy, healthy, productive. Nobody really depends on me for their educatin or to provide for them. Spent many hours of companionship with anybody I wanted too, most importantly, my wife.
My job is essentially done and if I drop dead on the floor right now, I need not have anybody feel bad or sorry for me. I would not have one regret. I am where I wanted and planned to be at this point.
If I happen to have some more time to spend constructively, so be it, but I am well prepared to enter into the time when the end is in sight.
I watched my father go through the last of his life with extreme dignity, a sense of humor and purpose, and a profound effect on many of us as to how death can be managed as an important part of life.
good posts, dale and yahweh.
Just as a small fire is extinguished by the storm whereas a large fire is enhanced by it - likewise a weak faith is weakened by predicament and catastrophes whereas a strong faith is strengthened by them.”
- - Viktor E. Frankl
Two Canadian astronomers think there is a good reason dark matter, a mysterious substance thought to make up the bulk of matter in the universe, has never been directly detected: It…
It doesn’t exist. L@L
http://news.yahoo.com/s/space/20071029/sc_space/scientistssaydarkmatterdoesntexist;_ylt=AmPwJHCNub90UUSikJzXBqsE1vAI
Thanks yahweh. That is beautiful.
Dale, re: your 8:36 - yes we all did know that. (Sometimes we take sadistic pleasure in joining you “mock, humiliate, castigate, ridicule, belittle or inflict any other type of mental abuse I can think of on any religious person that wants to take over our government or suvert the constitution, especially the first ammendment, especially if he thinks the bible is totally inerrent.”
)
Thanks to everyone for the words of wisdom about life and death.
Dale and Yahweh, beautiful posts…thanks.
Dale, not to worry… my kinky side doesn’t include sadism.
And science marches on.
Science is a wonderful thing.
3 cheers for science.
Thank you…..Thank you very much.
Alba: 11:41PM
Thanks.
dale, thanks for link
http://www.godtube.com/view_video.php?viewkey=e10543891fd2e7277d15
Alba: the Quote is from “THANATOPSIS” written by then 16 (sixteen!!!!) year old William Cullen Bryan, a renowned NATURALIST.
If time permits read the entire poem.
It’s hard to conprhend the wisdom that young man had. But , he, like many of our founders burned the wick of the midnight oil-lamp STUSYING ALL he and they could get their hands on!
Thank you, yahweh. That was awesome… beuatiful…comforting.
“Yet not to thine eternal resting-place
Shalt thou retire alone, nor couldst thou wish
Couch more magnificent. Thou shalt lie down
With patriarchs of the infant world,—with kings,
The powerful of the earth,—the wise, the good,
Fair forms, and hoary seers of ages past,
All in one mighty sepulchre…”
Proverbs 31
Sayings of King Lemuel
1 The sayings of King Lemuel—an oracle [a] his mother taught him:
2 “O my son, O son of my womb,
O son of my vows, [b]
3 do not spend your strength on women,
your vigor on those who ruin kings.
4 “It is not for kings, O Lemuel—
not for kings to drink wine,
not for rulers to crave beer,
5 lest they drink and forget what the law decrees,
and deprive all the oppressed of their rights.
6 Give beer to those who are perishing,
wine to those who are in anguish;
7 let them drink and forget their poverty
and remember their misery no more.
8 “Speak up for those who cannot speak for themselves,
for the rights of all who are destitute.
9 Speak up and judge fairly;
defend the rights of the poor and needy.”
Epilogue: The Wife of Noble Character
10 [c] A wife of noble character who can find?
She is worth far more than rubies.
11 Her husband has full confidence in her
and lacks nothing of value.
12 She brings him good, not harm,
all the days of her life.
13 She selects wool and flax
and works with eager hands.
14 She is like the merchant ships,
bringing her food from afar.
15 She gets up while it is still dark;
she provides food for her family
and portions for her servant girls.
16 She considers a field and buys it;
out of her earnings she plants a vineyard.
17 She sets about her work vigorously;
her arms are strong for her tasks.
18 She sees that her trading is profitable,
and her lamp does not go out at night.
19 In her hand she holds the distaff
and grasps the spindle with her fingers.
20 She opens her arms to the poor
and extends her hands to the needy.
21 When it snows, she has no fear for her household;
for all of them are clothed in scarlet.
22 She makes coverings for her bed;
she is clothed in fine linen and purple.
23 Her husband is respected at the city gate,
where he takes his seat among the elders of the land.
24 She makes linen garments and sells them,
and supplies the merchants with sashes.
25 She is clothed with strength and dignity;
she can laugh at the days to come.
26 She speaks with wisdom,
and faithful instruction is on her tongue.
27 She watches over the affairs of her household
and does not eat the bread of idleness.
28 Her children arise and call her blessed;
her husband also, and he praises her:
29 “Many women do noble things,
but you surpass them all.”
30 Charm is deceptive, and beauty is fleeting;
but a woman who fears the LORD is to be praised.
31 Give her the reward she has earned,
and let her works bring her praise at the city gate.
Footnotes:
Proverbs 31:1 Or of Lemuel king of Massa, which
Proverbs 31:2 Or / the answer to my prayers
Proverbs 31:10 Verses 10-31 are an acrostic, each verse beginning with a successive letter of the Hebrew alphabet
Good day for creationist
http://youtube.com/watch?v=HajP5pE4BE0
ain’t gonna be any “good” days for creationists as long as they maintain their mythical stance.
Why do so many whacked-out nutjobs find it necessary to attempt to infect others with their belief delusions?
Could it be , they are so sick, so insecure that they believe if others acknowledge the same delusion they’re really not the total idiots all their other senses scream at them they actually are?
You know— if ONE idiot claims to see a sacred iconic image in a pile of bovine scat…he’s just a moron,but if multitudes join in the shared delusion…it’s a religion!
And we’re supposed to respect that?
The content thereof?
HA!
All too often, the local TV newscasters air a story about some nut who sees the baby Jesus or the virgin Mary in a piece of toast, and the TV people speak in hushed tones and very, very serious expressions on their faces.
I’d probably giggle, and get fired.
if ONE idiot claims to see a sacred iconic image in a pile of bovine scat…he’s just a moron,but if multitudes join in the shared delusion…it’s defcon!
…says Bill_the mindless troll from_defcon…
2nd test
I see the con is ahead of its time. he he he
day light savings time is over.
your time is over, punk-ass.
LOL