"The Origin of Specious Nonsense"

Dj Stiggie

Listening to him on Newstalk right now. He just sounds like a naive optimist, who dismisses all reason

axer

ScienceNerd wrote: »

Anyone get an actual response to an email yet?

I just got a response saying the email was noted and would be passed on.

token56

It's not anti science because it's anti evolution, I wouldn't call it anti science because I dont think it should be even remotely associated with science in general. Any argument I have heard from him or any extract I have seen does not in any way follow the rigors of scientific research. His arguments are not scientific at all, when he says rubbish along the lines of "darwin says we are the cousins of turnips and banana's because we share some DNA them, this is ridiculous, therefore evolution cant be true", it demonstrates just how little he understands on the topic he is trying to discuss. It's like something from south park really. For it to be called anti science I think he would first of all have to demonstrate that he fully understands what he is trying to "disprove".

sponsoredwalk

MagicMarker wrote: »

Someone please tell me this stuff will be online at some stage?

click listen live

Turtwig

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

click listen live

It just finished. I heard the last bit about ape arms and human arms DNA. Seriously though if we'd just kept our mouths shut this gombeen wouldn't be getting the air time he is getting now.

Dougla2

yeah i hope that its put online , do they do that on newstalk?

Sam Vimes

token56 wrote: »

It's not anti science because it's anti evolution, I wouldn't call it anti science because I dont think it should be even remotely associated with science in general. Any argument I have heard from him or any extract I have seen does not in way follow the rigors of scientific research. His arguments are not scientific at all, when he says rubbish along the lines of "darwin says we are the cousins of turnips and banana's because we share some DNA them, this is ridiculous, therefore evolution cant be true", it demonstrates just how little he understands on the topic he is trying to discuss. It's like something from south park really. For it to be called anti science I think he would first of all have to demonstrate that he fully understands what he is trying to "disprove".

I'd say the opposite tbh. In order to mount a scientific objection to a theory you have to fully understand it. It's when you have no understanding of the thing you're trying to disprove and end up spouting nonsense that you're engaged in "anti-science"

Sam Vimes

Dougla2 wrote: »

yeah i hope that its put online , do they do that on newstalk?

Yes they do. www.newstalk.ie

sponsoredwalk

Yeah sorry, the feed started stalling on me & I missed the last few minutes.

This is pathetic, I hope plenty of doctors will go tomorrow and ask this
fruitcake some good questions.

Malari

token56 wrote: »

It's not anti science because it's anti evolution, I wouldn't call it anti science because I dont think it should be even remotely associated with science in general. Any argument I have heard from him or any extract I have seen does not in way follow the rigors of scientific research. His arguments are not scientific at all, when he says rubbish along the lines of "darwin says we are the cousins of turnips and banana's because we share some DNA them, this is ridiculous, therefore evolution cant be true", it demonstrates just how little he understands on the topic he is trying to discuss. It's like something from south park really. For it to be called anti science I think he would first of all have to demonstrate that he fully understands what he is trying to "disprove".

That's exactly what I was just thinking. It's either the best hoax ever or the best argument from incredulity I've ever heard. I mean the talk about "DNA gloop - how does that become a nose?" Wow, what ignorance. I don't mind anyone who wants to ask that question, but to write a book when you have no basic knowledge of the subject is ridiculous.

token56

Sam Vimes wrote: »

I'd say the opposite tbh. In order to mount a scientific objection to a theory you have to fully understand it. It's when you have no understanding of the thing you're trying to disprove and end up spouting nonsense that you're engaged in "anti-science"

Hmmm, I can see your point, maybe I'd prefer to call it "non-science", although probably with the same meaning as what you describe as anti science.

purple_hatstand

Dougla2 wrote: »

yeah i hope that its put online , do they do that on newstalk?

It should be up later this afternoon (today's Lunchtime Show is already there)

http://www.newstalk.ie/programmes/all/moncrieff/listen-back/

Dougla2

purple_hatstand wrote: »

It should be up later this afternoon (today's Lunchtime Show is already there)

http://www.newstalk.ie/programmes/all/moncrieff/listen-back/

nice thanks

EDIT~: To find it its in tuesday part 2 @ 32:00 or thereabouts

briano

Online now.

This man is a fool. Although I am intrigued about how he reads things "Forensically"

CSI: Evolution

Dougla2

briano wrote: »

Online now.

This man is a fool. Although I am intrigued about how he reads things "Forensically"

CSI: Evolution

hahah lol , i bought the greatest show on earth to make myself feel better

sonicthebadger*

Thanks to everyone who sent emails to the Minister.

Paparazzo

briano wrote: »

Online now.

This man is a fool. Although I am intrigued about how he reads things "Forensically"

CSI: Evolution

You have to buy his book to find out. He ignores all sorts of evidence, but asks us to believe him. He should put his book online free so it can be peer reviewed, but somehow I don't think it'll happen

Dougla2

Paparazzo wrote: »

You have to buy his book to find out. He ignores all sorts of evidence, but asks us to believe him. He should put his book online free so it can be peer reviewed, but somehow I don't think it'll happen

probably find it on some torrent website , no way should any one buy it and support him

Paparazzo

Color lenihan is going to be on George hook, wonder if they'll mention it?

Dougla2

Paparazzo wrote: »

Color lenihan is going to be on George hook, wonder if they'll mention it?

on newstalk?

FionnMatthew

briano wrote: »

Online now.

This man is a fool. Although I am intrigued about how he reads things "Forensically"

CSI: Evolution

http://www.google.ie/search?hl=en&client=firefox-a&hs=5kY&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&q=define%3Aforensic&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=

The Mad Hatter

Malari wrote: »

He sounds like that Irish "Derren Brown" fella.

Huh?

Dades

Can't imagine Hooky being too up with the natural sciences, and consequently might take the view that such a book could be a valid alternative view.

Dades

And folks, maybe tone the name-calling and vitriol pointed at the author. It's not necessary and a little over the top.

Ush1

Dades wrote: »

And folks, maybe tone the name-calling and vitriol pointed at the author. It's not necessary and a little over the top.

In the same vein, doubt the folks at Nat Geo will appreciate him holding up their magazine and shouting "BULLSH*T!".

axer

Was on matt cooper just there.

Turtwig

axer wrote: »

Was on matt cooper just there.

Is there a link?

mikhail

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

Huh?

I had the same reaction. Derren Brown is quite a vocal atheist and sceptic.

Paparazzo

Dougla2 wrote: »

on newstalk?

Actually, I think I misheard George. Sorry!

sonicthebadger*

Malty_T wrote: »

Is there a link?

Don't bother, Mat did what the rest of the media should have done and asked why is this a problem? Then moved on. Gave the bit all of about 2 minutes.