[_ Old Earth _] Be Afriad Evolutionists.

[BobRyan]

Again nothing but appeal to emotions. No substance. But you are trying to debate against a well factually backed theory. We should not expect any thing more.

Substance please.

We are looking at a half-baked junk science religion well known for the Horse Series fraud, the Pitldown fraud, the Neanderthal fraud, the appeal for "a massive DECREASE In Entropy" for "Molecule to human mind" story telling (as admitted by Isaac Asimov) and the words of the senior paleontologist at the british museum of natural history saying "The STORIES about how one thing came from another are in fact STORIES EASY ENOUGH TO TELL but they are NOT SCIENCE".

How sad that such a fraudulent system serving as a blind servant of atheism ( as it produces junk-science story telling ad nauseum) -- should be labeled on a Christian message board like this as "factually backed" when in "fact" it is nothing more than "half baked" junk science.

It survives today only because the Political-correctness "crusaders" manipulating American courts in favor for the atheist jiihad against the God of the Bible.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[jwu]

Again nothing but appeal to emotions. No substance. But you are trying to debate against a well factually backed theory. We should not expect any thing more.

Substance please.

We are looking at a half-baked junk science religion well known for the Horse Series fraud, the Pitldown fraud, the Neanderthal fraud, the appeal for "a massive DECREASE In Entropy" for "Molecule to human mind" story telling (as admitted by Isaac Asimov) and the words of the senior paleontologist at the british museum of natural history saying "The STORIES about how one thing came from another are in fact STORIES EASY ENOUGH TO TELL but they are NOT SCIENCE".

How sad that such a fraudulent system serving as a blind servant of atheism ( as it produces junk-science story telling ad nauseum) -- should be labeled on a Christian message board like this as "factually backed" when in "fact" it is nothing more than "half baked" junk science.

in Christ,

Bob

Please make a thread about the supposed horse series fraud. Piltdown and neanderthal man have their own threads already, so please post there. Also make a thread about that supposed decrease of entropy.

 

[VaultZero4Me]

Again nothing but appeal to emotions. No substance. But you are trying to debate against a well factually backed theory. We should not expect any thing more.

Substance please.

We are looking at a half-baked junk science religion well known for the Horse Series fraud, the Pitldown fraud, the Neanderthal fraud, the appeal for "a massive DECREASE In Entropy" for "Molecule to human mind" story telling (as admitted by Isaac Asimov) and the words of the senior paleontologist at the british museum of natural history saying "The STORIES about how one thing came from another are in fact STORIES EASY ENOUGH TO TELL but they are NOT SCIENCE".

How sad that such a fraudulent system serving as a blind servant of atheism ( as it produces junk-science story telling ad nauseum) -- should be labeled on a Christian message board like this as "factually backed" when in "fact" it is nothing more than "half baked" junk science.

It survives today only because the Political-correctness "crusaders" manipulating American courts in favor for the atheist jiihad against the God of the Bible.

in Christ,

Bob

:crazyeyes:

Why is it everything is a conspiracy theory?

Global warming - conspiracy
Evolution -conspiracy
the gay conspiracy
atheist conspiracy to remove every trace of God

I know I am missing one or two conspiracys I have heard about in my time.

Are all of these spearheaded by the illuminati?

 

[BobRyan]

So what? Very most of these papers are quite old. No-one denies that he used to be a promising scientist,

ALL of the refereed publications I listed were in 2006 and 2007..

HOW MANY did you produce in the last 5 minutes such that you think 2006 and 2007 are "TOO OLD"??

The book I listed was from 2004 --- you calim this shows "HE USED to be good".

You need a "less timid association with facts" in your responses if you hope to be taken seriously.

Since 2002 Gonzalez has been the first author of only three papers, and secondary author of 11 others. This means that in five years he participated in 14 papers. For comparison, in 1998 and 1999 he produced a total of 18 papers and was primary author of 9 of them.

I note you didn't even bother to adress his failure to graduate even a single student since 2001.

Because that is another factless argument. A single professor does not "Graduate" students.

You may have MEANT to reference doctoral dissertations and given the books and articles I listed in 2004 - 2007 alone one might argue that his abililty to proctor doctoral students thesis papers got "less time".

His colleagues in average achieved 1.3 million dollars in research grants during their first six years. Gonzalez only attained 200.000 dollars at most. In other words, the faculty was losing money in keeping him employed, as he cost them more than what he earned them - unlike his colleagues. Would you have kept him employed under such circumstances?

You seem to be struggling with math. 200k is 15% of the total for ALL the ISU -- so if they only had 5-6 professors -- then that is about right. Or are you claiming there are only 3?

In Christ,

Bob

 

[jwu]

ALL of the refereed publications I listed were in 2006 and 2007..

HOW MANY did you produce in the last 5 minutes such that you think 2006 and 2007 are "TOO OLD"??

Let's take a look at what you actually listed:

REFEREED PUBLICATIONS IN PRINT (cont.)
64. G. Gonzalez, “The Sun’s Interior Metallicity Constrained by Neutrinos,†Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 370, L90 (2006).
65. G. Gonzalez, “Indium Abundance Trends Among Sun-like Stars,†Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 371, 781 (2006).
66. G. Gonzalez, “The Chemical Compositions of Stars with Planets: A Review,†Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 118, 1494 (2006) (invited review paper).[my comment: just a review of someone elses paper]
67. A. D. Vanture, V. V. Smith, J. Lutz, G. Wallerstein, D. Lambert, G. Gonzalez, “Correlation Between Lithium and Technetium Absorption Lines in the Spectra of Galactic S Stars,†Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 119, 147 (2007).
68. G. Gonzalez, C. Laws, “Parent Stars of Extrasolar Planets VIII. Chemical Abundances for 18 Elements in 31 Stars, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, in press. [my comment: no date specified]

CONTRIBUTED PAPERS
1. “Shells, Faint Haloes, and Historical Mass ejection in Planetary Nebulae,†B. Balick, G. Gonzalez, A. Frank, G. Jacoby, B.A.A.S., 23, 914 (1991).
2. “An Abundance Analysis of ROA 24, a Likely Post-AGB Star in Omega Centauri,†G.
Gonzalez and G. Wallerstein, B.A.A.S., 23 (1991).
3. “A Photometric Investigation of Cepheids in Omega Cen,†G. Gonzalez, B.A.A.S., Meeting 181, abstract 12.01 (1992).
4. “Spectroscopic Study of Cepheids in Omega Cen,†in New Perspectives on Stellar Pulsation and Pulsating Variable Stars: IAU Colloquium 139, G. Gonzalez and G. Wallerstein (1993).
5. “Hydrogen-Deficient Nature of Z Umi,†in Hydrogen deficient Stars, A. Goswami, N. K. Rao, G. Gonzalez, and D. L. Lambert (1996).
6. “High Resolution Spectra of FG Sge During the 1992 and 1994 Deep Minima,†in Hydrogen Deficient Stars, V. V. Smith, G. Gonzalez, N. K. Rao (1996).
7. “The Chemical Composition of IRAS 05341+0852: A Post-AGB F Supergiant with 21 micron Emission,†in Planetary Nebulae: Proceedings of the 180th IAU, B. E. Reddy, M. Parthasarathy, G. Gonzalez, E. J. Bakker (1997).
8. “The Stellar Metallicity-Planet Connection,†in Brown Dwarfs and Extrasolar Planets, G. Gonzalez (1998).
CONTRIBUTED PAPERS (cont.)
9. “Chemical Abundance Trends Among RV Tauri Stars,†in A Half-Century of Stellar Pulsation Interpretation: A Tribute to Arthur N. Cox, G. Gonzalez and D. L. Lambert (1998).
10. “V553 Cen and the Carbon Cepheids,†in A Half-Century of Stellar Pulsation Interpretation: A Tribute to Arthur N. Cox, G. Wallerstein and G. Gonzalez (1998).
11. “Nucleosynthesis in FG Sge,†in Stellar Evolution, Stellar Explosions and Galactic Chemical Evolution, G. Gonzalez (1998).
12. “Elemental Abundances in Stars in the Retrograde Globular Cluster NGC 3201,†G. Wallerstein and G. Gonzalez, B.A.A.S., 30 (1998).

[emphasis mine]

Most are from the 90ies, and you even can see how much his productivity dropped since 1998. He used to publish nine papers in one year, in your own source he only produced four own papers in two years.

The book I listed was from 2004 --- you calim this shows "HE USED to be good".

Books are not peer reviewed research papers. And even if they were, 2004 has long since passed.

Because that is another factless argument. A single professor does not "Graduate" students.

Semantics.

You may have MEANT to reference doctoral dissertations and given the books and articles I listed in 2004 - 2007 alone one might argue that his abililty to proctor doctoral students thesis papers got "less time".

Uh, these merely four (if we include the one without date) papers of the combined years of 2006 and 2007 must have kept him reeeeeally busy, yeah. The rest of the references is from the 90ies.

Here is his real publication record:

That pretty much looks like the very definition of "not living up to the promise of one's early career".

I note you didn't comment on his disastrous research grant record.

 

[BobRyan]

Some things the movie "EXPELLED" did not have a chance to list "in detail"

More on the "under performance" of Gonzalez -

Dr. Gonzalez’s Book on Intelligent Design
In 2004, Dr.Gonzalez co-authored the book The Privileged Planet: How Our Place in the Cosmos is Designed for Discovery, which presents empirical evidence for the hypothesis that the universe is the product of intelligent design. Supported by a research grant from the Templeton Foundation, the book has earned praise from such eminent scientists as David Hughes, a Vice-President of the Royal Astronomical Society, Harvard astrophysicist Owen Gingerich, and Cambridge paleobiologist Simon Conway Morris. The Privileged Planet was developed into a documentary and shown on PBS stations around the country.

More on the politcal attack against Gonzalez initiated by atheist darwinist leaders.

[quote:9d1f3]

Attacks on Dr. Gonzalez’s Academic Freedom

After the release of Privileged Planet, ISU religious studies professor Hector Avalosâ€â€faculty advisor to the campus Atheist and Agnostic Societyâ€â€began publicly campaigning against Dr. Gonzalez and his work. Although Dr. Gonzalez had never introduced intelligent design into his classes, Avalos helped spearhead a faculty petition urging “all faculty†at ISU to “uphold the integrity of our university†by “reject[ing] efforts to portray Intelligent Design as science.†Avalos later conceded to a local newspaper that Gonzalez was the key motive for the petition. The logical conclusion of this campaign against Dr. Gonzalez came in the spring of 2007 when ISU President Gregory Geoffroy denied Dr. Gonzalez’s application for tenure.

Again -- I am just "soooo sure" that jwu was about to list this in his factual presentation regarding Gonzalez but he was propbably "too busy".
[/quote:9d1f3]

Here is the "insightful" reponse we get to the reference above about the book "made movie" in 2004 to try and show what a slacker this guy Gonzalez must be ...

When I say "The book I listed was from 2004 --- you calim this shows "HE USED to be good".

Books are not peer reviewed research papers. And even if they were, 2004 has long since passed.

Recall that the "book" were talking about went out nationwide - and came with endorsements NOT available to UNDER PERFORMERS as we see in the note below.

Supported by a research grant from the Templeton Foundation, the book has earned praise from such eminent scientists as

David Hughes, a Vice-President of the Royal Astronomical Society,

Harvard astrophysicist Owen Gingerich,

and Cambridge paleobiologist Simon Conway Morris.

The Privileged Planet was developed into a documentary and shown on PBS stations around the country.

When the "burn all bridges" attack on the part of atheist darwinist devotees takes an achievement like that in 2004 and says "TOO LONG ago" and add an argument about the quality of the science as you just did -- THEN it is "glaringly apparent to ALL" the kind of PC agenda that has been fomented among atheist darwinist followers.

While jwu is running down the quality of the science and the contribution of the book - Hughes, Gingerich and Morris praise the work.

jwu Your response in contrast to the facts speaks volumes in terms of the objectivity or lack thereof that you bring to the point.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

[
Here is his real publication record:

That pretty much looks like the very definition of "not living up to the promise of one's early career".

I note you didn't comment on his disastrous research grant record.

You have done a great job of comparing "Gonzalez to Gonzalez" without showing "What this means".

And I did address your 200K vs 1.3 M by showing that 15% is lacking ONLY if you are reduced to 3 professors. Is that your claim for ISU????

Now - having produced Gonzalez' stellar record of 68 refereed scientific papers lets see what the ACTUAL standards are at ISU for tenure -- instead of blindly comparing Gonzales TO GONZALEZ trying to figure out if those books written were taking up time (like that effort EVEN has a POINT to it).

Key Facts about Tenure Process at Iowa State University

• According to ISU’s Department of Physics and Astronomy, “[f]or promotion to associate professor, excellence sufficient to lead to a national or international reputation is required and would ordinarily be shown by the publication of approximately fifteen papers of good quality in refereed journals. (Physics and Astronomy Procedures and Promotion and Tenure Policy and Procedure,.)
• Having produced 68 refereed scientific papers, Dr. Gonzalez has exceeded his own department’s standard for “excellence†in research by more than 350%.

As I said these were "facts" I "just KNOW" you were "ABOUT to bring up" to show context and perspective -- but were "too busy".

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Why is it everything is a conspiracy theory?

Global warming - conspiracy
Evolution -conspiracy
the gay conspiracy
atheist conspiracy to remove every trace of God

I know I am missing one or two conspiracys I have heard about in my time.

Are all of these spearheaded by the illuminati?

Funny - factless as usual - but funny.

When I point to frauds, hoaxes, blunders and gaffs in the junk science religion we know today as atheist darwinism I am talking about cases where the high priests of darwinism -- the actual ATHEISTS that promote it (for the unwitting compromised Christians to swallow) are ADMITTING to the blunders.

Simpson's horse series being one of the more famous ones --

But "yes" I do have a list.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[jwu]

Recall that the "book" were talking about went out nationwide - and came with endorsements NOT available to UNDER PERFORMERS as we see in the note below.

A nice documentation for laymen does not contribute to the body of knowledge of the scientific community. It counts for little.

jwu Your response in contrast to the facts speaks volumes in terms of the objectivity or lack thereof that you bring to the point.

So why has his publication record evidently plummetted since 2002?

And I did address your 200K vs 1.3 M by showing that 15% is lacking ONLY if you are reduced to 3 professors. Is that your claim for ISU????

I missed it, and now that i read it, i cannot really follow your line of reasoning there. Please elaborate.

You seem to be implying that 1.3M was the total of the entire physics department, and that he thus contributed 15% of the total research grants of that department. According to what i read, in contrast, each individual one of his colleagues earned 1.3M in average. That means that Gonzalez only collected 15% of the research grants of his average colleague - a pathetic performance.

Now - having produced Gonzalez' stellar record of 68 refereed scientific papers lets see what the ACTUAL standards are at ISU for tenure -- instead of blindly comparing Gonzales TO GONZALEZ trying to figure out if those books written were taking up time (like that effort EVEN has a POINT to it).

Having met the minimum standards does not mean that one has a right to remain employed. It is no excuse to slack off either. What did he do all the time in his probation period? From up to 10 papers per year he went down to 2.6 in average, and he spent several years without being the first author of a paper at all. It's hardly surprising that slacking off during the probation period like that results in a termination of the contract.

 

[VaultZero4Me]

Why is it everything is a conspiracy theory?

Global warming - conspiracy
Evolution -conspiracy
the gay conspiracy
atheist conspiracy to remove every trace of God

I know I am missing one or two conspiracys I have heard about in my time.

Are all of these spearheaded by the illuminati?

Funny - factless as usual - but funny.

When I point to frauds, hoaxes, blunders and gaffs in the junk science religion we know today as atheist darwinism I am talking about cases where the high priests of darwinism -- the actual ATHEISTS that promote it (for the unwitting compromised Christians to swallow) are ADMITTING to the blunders.

Simpson's horse series being one of the more famous ones --

But "yes" I do have a list.

in Christ,

Bob

Why would I want to get into a "factual" debate with someone who uses terms like "high priestes of darwinism", "atheist darwinism", "darwins jihad", etc.

You show no intent for actual debate. Just Ad homs, appeal to emotions, and mis-information.

 

[BobRyan]

You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink.

I was simply pointing to the facts in your diatribe against Gonzalez so you could tell the difference between facts you were ignoring and the ad hominem attacks on him that you were supporting.

And i am also more than happy to point to the frequent blunders of atheist darwinism in general.

IF you had some lingering loyalty to the debunked Simpson horse series I was more than willing to disabuse you of the any misplaced loyalty in that portion of the never-ending story telling of atheiist darwinism.

However I could not get you to admit that your interest there was related to you actually knowing that Simpson published or in your still supporting it as if it were true.

As I say -- "you can't make them drink".

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Patashu]

I'm really not seeing what Gonzales has done at ISU to deserve tenure.

We can see that he takes in less money, 15% less than ONE of his collegues. We can see that his publication record dropped significantly, especially for first authorship. What do you have for him then?

 

[jwu]

We can see that he takes in less money, 15% less than ONE of his collegues.

From what i've read he didn't even only take in 15% less than one of his average colleagues, but only 15% of what one of his colleagues took in in average during the same period of time.
In other words, in terms of gaining research grants he underperformed by 85% compared to his average colleagues.

I was simply pointing to the facts in your diatribe against Gonzalez so you could tell the difference between facts you were ignoring and the ad hominem attacks on him that you were supporting.

What was i ignoring then? I do acknowledge his nice publication record of 10 years ago. Unfortunately for him that doesn't allow him to rest on his laurels - especially not during a probation period.

IF you had some lingering loyalty to the debunked Simpson horse series I was more than willing to disabuse you of the any misplaced loyalty in that portion of the never-ending story telling of atheiist darwinism.

However I could not get you to admit that your interest there was related to you actually knowing that Simpson published or in your still supporting it as if it were true.

Please, go ahead and make a thread about it.

 

[BobRyan]

Bob said
I was simply pointing to the facts in your (unbalanced) diatribe against Gonzalez so you could tell the difference between facts you were ignoring and the ad hominem attacks on him that you were supporting.

What was i ignoring then? I do acknowledge his nice publication record of 10 years ago. Unfortunately for him that doesn't allow him to rest on his laurels - especially not during a probation period.

Well each time I BROUGHT up things like the fact that he has published almost 4 times the amount of research as the TENURE process at IOWA state requires "on average" (and you conveniently never did post any such balancing data) or the books and papers since 2001... or the well respected approval of his work by independant sources (also never mentioned in any of your diatribes against Gonzalez) I would add "and I am just so sure you were ABOUT to add these balancing details -- but were too busy" which is the optimistic view of your work on this thread so far.

Surely you would agree to that much.

And when I point out that the opposition to Gonzalez begins with the religion departments advisor to the Atheist and Agnostic club two years before the decision to stunt the academic progress of Gonzalez - you simply add it to your list of "inconvenient detals that do not fit your story about Gonzalez" .

What is really so "remarkable" to the unbiased objective reader is that you would filter out all these stellar achievements for Gonzalez until I bring them up -- then when I do try to spin them as "a bad thing" and then pretend that you are in fact being "balanced" and EVEN MORE astounding that THIS Is the case (the one you have floundered on in terms of being exposed in your filtering of the facts) that YOU bring Gonzalez up as PROOF that the Expelled movie "Got it all wrong"!!

How "instructive" for the unbiased objective reader!

You have my appreciation for making it so transparent.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[jwu]

Well each time I BROUGHT up things like the fact that he has published almost 4 times the amount of research as the TENURE process at IOWA state requires "on average" (and you conveniently never did post any such balancing data) or the books and papers since 2001

And for the X-th time, i do acknowledge his successful past. Meeting one minimum standard however does not warrant to slack off afterwards. From 9 papers per year down to 2 papers per year is a significant drop, isn't it? Of most of these papers he isn't even the first author! Couldn't the ISU expect more from someone with such a nice past record?

Did you notice that you only provided four papers and once book since 2001? All other references were from the 90ies!

... or the well respected approval of his work by independant sources (also never mentioned in any of your diatribes against Gonzalez) I would add "and I am just so sure you were ABOUT to add these balancing details -- but were too busy" which is the optimistic view of your work on this thread so far.

So how is this supposed to justify tenure?

And when I point out that the opposition to Gonzalez begins with the religion departments advisor to the Atheist and Agnostic club two years before the decision to stunt the academic progress of Gonzalez - you simply add it to your list of "inconvenient detals that do not fit your story about Gonzalez" .

Do you have a date for this? AFAIK he already was told that he needed to bring in more funding in 2004, and that has been repeated yearly since.


Answer me this: To which level would have his publication record need to have dropped so that even you would say that the tenure had been rightly denied?

 

[BobRyan]

Bob said --
IF you had some lingering loyalty to the debunked Simpson horse series I was more than willing to disabuse you of the any misplaced loyalty in that portion of the never-ending story telling of atheiist darwinism.

However I could not get you to admit that your interest there was related to you actually knowing that Simpson published or in your still supporting it as if it were true.

Please, go ahead and make a thread about it.

Since you still seem a bit timid in either supporting or condeming the horse series published by Simpson and displayed at the Smithsonian -- perhaps if you could see the degree to which atheist darwinist strongly supported that sequence...

Moving up the stratigraphic column, fossils reveal a main line of evolution progressing continuously from Eohippus [hyracotherium] to Equus

The line from Eohippus to Hypohippus exemplifies a fairly continuous phyletic evolution."
G.G. Simpson, Horses, 1951, pg 215.

"Horses are among the best-documented examples of evolutionary development."â€â€World Book Encyclopedia (1982 ed.), p. 333.

"The development of the horse is allegedly one of the most concrete examples of evolution. The changes in size, type of teeth, shape of head, number of toes, etc., are frequently illustrated in books and museums as an undeniable evidence of the evolution of living things."â€â€Harold G. Coffin, Creation: Accident or Design? (1969), p. 193.

". . [On February 14, 1981] in California he (Dr. Eldredge) was on a network television program. The host asked him to comment on the creationist claim that there were no examples of transitional forms to be found in the fossil record. Dr. Eldredge turned to the horse series display at the American Museum and stated that it was the best available example of a transitional sequence."â€â€L.D. Sunderland, Darwin’s Enigma (1988), p. 82.

--

Just let me know if the sequence endorsed above -- has your approval as well.

Bob

 

[jwu]

Put this in an own thread and i'll respond. I won't let this one be derailed.

 

[BobRyan]

Well each time I BROUGHT up things like the fact that he has published almost 4 times the amount of research as the TENURE process at IOWA state requires "on average" (and you conveniently never did post any such balancing data) or the books and papers since 2001

And for the X-th time, i do acknowledge his successful past.

Is it your claim that "I do acknowledge" means "I never brought any of his success up until you posted the facts and forced me to admit to it"??

IS that filtering of the data your defintion of the "balance" that you put into your diatribe against Gonzalez???

When I point out that his publication of papers is about FOUR TIMES the average for tenure at ISU you come back with the non-answer " Meeting one minimum standard however does not warrant to slack off afterwards.[/quote]

AS if FOUR TIMES what ISU accepts is "THE MINIMUM"????

Again - this is not even "filtering of data" it is total misrepresentation and spin - AS IF the reader will not "notice" that exceeding the average for AWARD of Tenure by 350% is conveniently recast as "MINIMUM STANDARD" for those bent on a diatribe against Gonzalez.

How many ISU associate professors on their way to Tenure -- published books that got national notice PBS publication and stelllar independant endorsement as in the "Priviledged Planet"??

NONE?

From 9 papers per year down to 2 papers per year is a significant drop, isn't it?

Here we can not help but notice that your rant against Gonzalez faithfully calls EXCEEDING the ISU average for TENURE AWARD by 350% to be "under performing".

Your methods here speak for themselves and are living proof of the fact of filtered data and skewed reporting done by the pro-atheist darwinist political lobby against any proposal that is not totally compatible with atheist "needs" in science.


Answer me this: To which level would have his publication record need to have dropped so that even you would say that the tenure had been rightly denied?[/quote]

Answer me this -- why are you "making stuff up" as IF there was an ISU "yearly RATE for papers and books and movies" that Gonzalez did not meet??

Get a grip on objective facts sir. The fact is clear - you have taken someone with a stellar record and SELECTED HIM as your "model case" for "under acheiving" and "proof" that the movie "Expelled got it all wrong".

So far your slanted presentation filtering out inconvenient facts - and relying on ME to present the balancing data - speaks for itself. Then "making stuff up" like "the rate of papers in the last 12 months regardless of the total volume of papers and books and movies" is just totally transparent to the objective unbiased reader capable of independant thought.

I thank you once again for making it so clear to the reader.

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Put this in an own thread and i'll respond. I won't let this one be derailed.

In that space you COULD have posted "I approve of those statements - start a thread on it if I am wrong".

Again - "instructive" that you are not coming out on it.

 

[jwu]

Is it your claim that "I do acknowledge" means "I never brought any of his success up until you posted the facts and forced me to admit to it"??

IS that filtering of the data your defintion of the "balance" that you put into your diatribe against Gonzalez???

I didn't bring them up because they don't matter. If one wants to be employed in 2008 then one has to do good work in 2008. Having done good work ten years earlier doesn't cut it, i'm afraid.

AS if FOUR TIMES what ISU accepts is "THE MINIMUM"????

Again - this is not even "filtering of data" it is total misrepresentation and spin - AS IF the reader will not "notice" that exceeding the average for AWARD of Tenure by 350% is conveniently recast as "MINIMUM STANDARD" for those bent on a diatribe against Gonzalez.

So what? Resting on past laurels does not mean that one has a right to tenure.

How many ISU associate professors on their way to Tenure -- published books that got national notice PBS publication and stelllar independant endorsement as in the "Priviledged Planet"??

NONE?

DId this contribute to the body of knowledge of science?

[quote:1be18]
From 9 papers per year down to 2 papers per year is a significant drop, isn't it?

Answer me this: To which level would have his publication record need to have dropped so that even you would say that the tenure had been rightly denied?

Answer me this -- why are you "making stuff up" as IF there was an ISU "yearly RATE for papers and books and movies" that Gonzalez did not meet??
[/quote:1be18]
I note your evasion of the question - or do you seriously suggest that he should have given tenure even if he didn't publish any papers anymore (hypothetically)?

Get a grip on objective facts sir. The fact is clear - you have taken someone with a stellar record and SELECTED HIM as your "model case" for "under acheiving" and "proof" that the movie "Expelled got it all wrong".

As a matter of fact he is underachieving in terms of gaining research grants. He even said so himself that this has been pointed out to him since 2004.