Joseph: Both scientists of course are world famous.
An undergraduate might start with a model not found in nature, like
evolution, but not a senior scientist. He should have moved on to the
realistic experiments and not taken the easy, unrealistic route to
ultimate disgrace.
Why ? Walter Munk states that without taking risks little progress can be made (paraphrased). It is exactly the risk which can reap rewards or "disgrace" but falsification of a theory or hypothesis does not mean necessarily disgrace. Newton's theory of motion was "disproven" but it still worked fine in most cases.
Joseph: The second scientist was the first one who thought he had identified a
star with wobble that inferred an orbiting planet. His insight at the
last minute proved that it was the Earth's wobble. It was an honest
error and in keeping with his scrupulous honesty, unlike Haeckel, he
reported his error. The standing ovation from his colleagues proved how
much they valued honesty and conversely how they would have hated him
had he acted like Haeckel.
The latter comment is a personal interpretation by Joseph and thus unfounded and unsupported by fact. That the second scientist's behavior should be applauded is without doubt.
> > So? What's your point?
Joseph: That's the point. I did not expect you to see it. But to be fair, you
did get 50% and for you that is an improvement.
The basic difference between us is that you put yourself, as do so many
others on this list, above morality and try to make it conform to your
wishes. That was why you could not put the $100,000, or even $10, in
escrow where you would be forced to submit to the law, which is based on
morality.
Now Joseph is abandoning logic and the scientific method in favor of his silly bets and ad hominems.
Joseph: The basic division on this list, and on the entire planet, is not
between "evolutionist" and "creationist." It is between anti-moralist
and moralist.
In your mind perhaps but that proves little.
Joseph: And that is why you don't give a damn about the planet, why your
"evolutionist" myth says everything is "evolving," getting better all
the time, when in fact that philosophy is accelerating the demise of the
entire planet and every species on it.
Strawman argument. Evolution nor evolutionists say that everything is getting better all the time. So unless you make an attempt to correctly portray evolution, little discussion on its merrits will be possible. Furthermore the theory of evolution is not hastening the demise of the planet or its species.
Joseph: You are committed to the biggest lie and crime in recorded history. The
planet is dying and there is no stopping it. The best we can do is
decelerate its demise.
An unsupported opinion at most. Joseph the fact of evolution is all but inescapable, how it happened i.e. the theory of evolution is up for discussion. Calling it without further evidence a crime and biggest lie is nothing more than a logical fallacy. Your beliefs however interesting have no relevance unless supported by fact and evidence.
That is dear Joseph the scientific method you claim to adhere to in name only.