Perhaps it is because they perceived you as being arrogant and so sure of your opinions. Hardly. I was an agnostic at the time and anything but sure of my opinions Someone like that usually doesn't want to hear any sort of criticism; they simply ask other people to review their works so that they can receive praise about how wonderful it is.. Not at all. Most all scholarly article are passed around for review (or should be). If all I get is positive feedback from a person I may not pass new material to that person again. The whole point is for them to critically analyze the paper. All papers have flaws (no paper is perfect, and we know this, so try to reduce the flaws). I always pass my papers to at least 4 to 6 experts before it is published.
Jerry Bergman
JoinedPosts by Jerry Bergman
-
229
JW scientist banned from Institute's WebSite because of Creationistic Views
by GermanXJW inrecently, dr. wolf-ekkehard loennig, a jw working in a leading position at the gene-science-department at the max-planck-institute, has been banned from the institute's website for spreading his view about evolution.
he promotes the so called "intelligents design".
max-planck-institute calles this creationism in disguise.
-
-
-
2
my responce to Jehovahs Witnesses United
by Jerry Bergman inmy responce to jehovahs witnesses united is now up at: http://www.freeminds.org/psych/psych.htmlook under "bergman, dr. jerry....".
.
-
-
Jerry Bergman
JWs don't like to deal with actual facts and argue things point-by-point, so they often resort to attacks on character instead. Boy is that true!!! Look what they say about Jim Penton and Raymond Franz and anyone else who opposes them.
-
229
JW scientist banned from Institute's WebSite because of Creationistic Views
by GermanXJW inrecently, dr. wolf-ekkehard loennig, a jw working in a leading position at the gene-science-department at the max-planck-institute, has been banned from the institute's website for spreading his view about evolution.
he promotes the so called "intelligents design".
max-planck-institute calles this creationism in disguise.
-
-
Jerry Bergman
It is true that the late Steven J. Gould did write some stupid papers. I have all his books and most of his articles and found most of them quite good except where he lost it and attacked creationists.
-
229
JW scientist banned from Institute's WebSite because of Creationistic Views
by GermanXJW inrecently, dr. wolf-ekkehard loennig, a jw working in a leading position at the gene-science-department at the max-planck-institute, has been banned from the institute's website for spreading his view about evolution.
he promotes the so called "intelligents design".
max-planck-institute calles this creationism in disguise.
-
-
Jerry Bergman
", or do you think maybe they just got tired of your stunts?" I never did any stunts aside from this one (it was the first and the last). "Jerry, were all the faculty at Bowling Green so incompetent that they couldn't tell a physics paper from one in a subject in which you are qualified to write" Good point (I thought they were incompetant, but then I am biased). They just attacked everything that I wrote no matter what it was.
-
229
JW scientist banned from Institute's WebSite because of Creationistic Views
by GermanXJW inrecently, dr. wolf-ekkehard loennig, a jw working in a leading position at the gene-science-department at the max-planck-institute, has been banned from the institute's website for spreading his view about evolution.
he promotes the so called "intelligents design".
max-planck-institute calles this creationism in disguise.
-
-
Jerry Bergman
As I stated in my post:
I see this all the time (he is a Professor of Physics) I obviously did not write this article as is clear from the post. The author is a Ph.D. and teaches at a leading American University (MIT or Cal Tech I think). I teach biology, not physics. I once passed around a paper written by Albert Einstein when I was at Bowing Green state University and asked for comments. They thought I wrote it and did I get comments! One said it was the worst paper I ever wrote! Boy was I flattered! Only one faculty recognized that I did not write it (I only asked for comments, and never claimed that I wrote it). He said "Jerry you did not write this did you?" I responded "no I did not" and I asked how he knew. He said that he recognized the paper. I still have the comments from faculty. I should try that on here. I have some good papers by the late Steven Gould of Harvard from the top journals that I should put on. I can hear the condemnation now: "a stupid paper" "You will never get this junk published" "Typical Creationists crap" Etc. Etc.
-
2
my responce to Jehovahs Witnesses United
by Jerry Bergman inmy responce to jehovahs witnesses united is now up at: http://www.freeminds.org/psych/psych.htmlook under "bergman, dr. jerry....".
.
-
-
Jerry Bergman
my responce to Jehovahs Witnesses United is now up at: http://www.freeminds.org/psych/psych.htm look under "Bergman, Dr. Jerry...."
-
1
James Long and Eric Galloway
by Jerry Bergman indoes anyone know bro james long or bro.
erik galloway?
any information would be helpful.
-
-
Jerry Bergman
Does anyone know Bro James Long or Bro. Erik Galloway? Any information would be helpful.
-
8
mass murder by a Witness
by Jerry Bergman inhas anyone read the book jungle gods by carl von hoffman?
it tells of a watchtower convert who decided that he needed to start armageddon on his own and ended up killing over a hundred persons before he was caught.
it is now long out of print but i found several copies using addall.com (a search engine) and on abe.com.
-
-
Jerry Bergman
I wouldn't describe either the Watchtower or Carl von Hoffman as historians. The Watchtower would, of course, tell their side of the account. Captain von Hoffman seems to have been an adventurer who wrote of his adventures. Earnest. Thanks for the information. I guess the term a writer is more accurate. By the way, your assessment was in part very well done. I do remember the watchtower had a fair amount of influence on the events, although they obviously did not approve of his killing spree. Somebody else read the account and I would like to hear what they think. I do have several Ph.D. thesis and scholarly books that cover Africa at this time and, if I remember correctly, they mention this case. It would be a good topic to do a paper on but you would have to be fluent in French and have the funds to travel to Africa. Any takers?
-
229
JW scientist banned from Institute's WebSite because of Creationistic Views
by GermanXJW inrecently, dr. wolf-ekkehard loennig, a jw working in a leading position at the gene-science-department at the max-planck-institute, has been banned from the institute's website for spreading his view about evolution.
he promotes the so called "intelligents design".
max-planck-institute calles this creationism in disguise.
-
-
Jerry Bergman
I guess we will need antidiscrimination laws against chimp discrimination.
NewScientist.com
Chimps are human, gene study implies
22:00 19 May 03
Jeff Hecht
The latest twist in the debate over how much DNA separates humans from chimpanzees suggests we are so closely related that chimps should not only be part of the same taxonomic family, but also the same genus.
The new study found that 99.4 percent of the most critical DNA sites are identical in the corresponding human and chimp genes. With that close a relationship, the two living chimp species belong in the genus Homo, says Morris Goodman of Wayne State University in Detroit.
The closeness of relationship between chimps and humans has become an important issue outside taxonomy, becoming part of the debate over the use of chimps in laboratory experiments and over their conservation in the wild.
Traditionally chimps are classified with the other great apes, gorillas and orangutans, in the family Pongidae, separated from the human family Hominidae. Within Hominidae, most paleoanthropologists now class virtually all hominid fossils in three genera, Homo, Australopithecus, or Ardipithecus.
On the basis of the new study, Goodman would not only put modern humans and all fossils back to the human-chimp divergence into Homo, but would also include the common chimp (Pan troglodytes) and the bonobo (Pan paniscus).
"The third chimpanzee"
It is not the first time such a suggestion has been made - in 1991 physiologist and ecologist Jared Diamond called humans "the third chimpanzee". But subsequent genetic comparisons have yielded varying results, depending on how the genotypes are compared.
Goodman compared published sequences of 97 genes on six species, including humans, chimps, gorillas, orangutans, and Old World monkeys. He looked only at what he considered the most functional DNA, bases which cannot be changed without a consequent change in the amino acid coded for by the gene.
Among these, he found that 99.4 percent were identical in humans and chimps. He found a lower correspondence for bases that could be changed without affecting the amino acid, with 98.4 percent identical for chimps and humans and the same for the "junk" DNA outside coding regions. Goodman believes the differences are larger for non-coding DNA because their sequences are not biologically critical.
Split date
His correlations are much higher than the 95 per cent similarity reported in 2002 by Roy Britten of the California Institute of Technology. Goodman does not disagree with those results, he told New Scientist, but points out that the differences analysed by Britten are not important to gene function because 98 percent of the DNA did not code for proteins.
The small difference between genotypes reflects the recent split between chimps and humans, says Goodman, who dates the divergence to between five and six million years ago.
But Sandy Harcourt, an anthropologist at the University of California at Davis, believes chimps and humans split six to 10 million years ago. "That's an awful long time to be in the same genus," he told New Scientist.
Classifying chimps as human might raise their conservation profile, but Harcourt hopes that is not the only way to get people to worry about them. "I'd prefer to go the other way, and consider more things that aren't human" as important for conservation, he says.
Journal reference: Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1232172100)
22:00 19 May 03
Return to news story -
229
JW scientist banned from Institute's WebSite because of Creationistic Views
by GermanXJW inrecently, dr. wolf-ekkehard loennig, a jw working in a leading position at the gene-science-department at the max-planck-institute, has been banned from the institute's website for spreading his view about evolution.
he promotes the so called "intelligents design".
max-planck-institute calles this creationism in disguise.
-
-
Jerry Bergman
I see this all the time (he is a Professor of Physics) I was once a devout agnostic-atheist and was as antagonistic to Christianity as Dawkins is now. However, I slowly returned to the faith of my youth. Then about twenty years ago, I began to have the faith that with God's help, I could actually solve some of the physics problems that I had become obsessed with. I then resumed research on one of the frontier problems of physics. In the course of wandering through the mathematical wilderness, I often prayed and asked God for guidance. When I was really stuck, I would be led to certain scriptures which revealed surprising relationships related to the problems I was trying to solve. Here are a couple of these surprising relationships which may mean nothing but are interesting: The ratio of the volume of the Holy City of New Jerusalem to the volume of the Ark of the Covenant is equal to the ratio of the Planck mass to the mass of the Hydrogen atom. The ratio of the area of a side of the Holy City to the Planck area is 2^266, which is the theoretically calculated number of protons in the SSM universe. [The Planck area is defined, here, as the square of the Planck wavelength, i.e. the wavelength of a Planck energy photon.]