Talk:Nils Heribert Nilsson
Contents |
[edit] Why this page
I plan to elaborate a little bit on NHN, as his is a typical example of the creationists' way with quotes...
larronsicut fur in nocte 16:11, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
- The Swedish Bontanical Instutute is something I'd expect to hear about in a shampoo commercial. --Kels (talk) 16:36, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
- I love this guy. The first creationist I ever met came out with this guys quote. I had been at uni about 6 weeks when some guy stopped be in front of the physics building and asked me if I believed it had been put together by random chance, I replied only if the bricks had some way on bonding that required a certain orientation like chemical bonds. We argued for about 20 minutes. I noticed every time I would reply to one of his points he would just go to the next one on his list. I kid you not this guy just had a book he was working through. The quote from Nils Heribert Nilsson was towards back meaning it was creationist heavy fire. I really have never taken them seriously since. - π 01:01, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Some musings
The formerly well-known Swedish biologist Heribert Nilsson is an elusive figure: it's hard to find his works today, and harder to find anyone who read them, though Tom McIver wrote about him in the book Anti Evolution: Annotated Bibliography, which I haven't laid hand on. This entry is quoted somehow here.
larronsicut fur in nocte 06:44, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
- It is currently available at my uni library I could go get it if you would like. This does require walking on my part. - π 06:48, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
- Strange it seems to exist in some strange superposition of both being in the main collection and not available for loan. Mind you our library does seem to be an experiment in the non-Newtonian laws of physics so it might be possible that when I find its wave form my collapse to allow me to borrow it. - π 06:54, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
- Okay, couldn't borrow but have material. What would you like done with it? - π 07:35, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
- Here is all the relevant pages. - π 08:04, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
- Okay, couldn't borrow but have material. What would you like done with it? - π 07:35, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
(EC) Wow, that's great - I'd like to read the material! If it's a pdf, you could just sent it to me ;-) I could get neither Nilsson's nor McIver's at my university's library. The creation-evolution debate isn't of much interest here... larronsicut fur in nocte 08:17, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
- I noticed its classification is Evolution-Controversial literature. - π 09:20, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
- Very interesting read: If he believed in the Welteislehre, it's not surprising that he published in German, and not in English!
- Joel Hedgpeth really didn't like the book: elegantly printed two-volume, two volumes of fact and fancy, Such works also serve another useful function (in addition to keeping printers employed), ouch, I LOLed when I read it... larronsicut fur in nocte 09:15, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
- This is why YECers love him - no well-versed amateur scientist has ever heard of him. One more lap of Gish galloping later... ħuman
09:18, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
- This is why YECers love him - no well-versed amateur scientist has ever heard of him. One more lap of Gish galloping later... ħuman
[edit] Swedish Botanical Institute
Now that we've ascertained that the SBI is not, in fact, the SBI but in fact just some university biology department, have we any reason to believe he was Director of that august institution, or just worked there? --Kels (talk) 21:29, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
- I don't think that the department was that big when Nilsson was professor in Lund (1934-1948) - perhaps three or four professors. Probably, the directorship rotated, so that Nilsson was director for some time... larronsicut fur in nocte 21:39, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
- Anyone thought of emailing the university and asking?
Генгисunbelieving 15:45, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
- I have emailed their information and press office for details. So I'll wait and see what I get back.
Генгисunbelieving 21:02, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
- Great! But why am I reminded of A. Schlafly, Dawkins and the university of Oxford? larronsicut fur in nocte 21:05, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
- Because back then, we emailed Oxford to gain assurance that Dawkins was, indeed a professor there... hehe... ħuman
00:26, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
- And of course, all we want is the accurate truth if we can find it. Schlafly was seeking to prove a half-assed pet assertion. Glad you thought of this, GK, thanks! ħuman
00:27, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
- Because back then, we emailed Oxford to gain assurance that Dawkins was, indeed a professor there... hehe... ħuman
- Great! But why am I reminded of A. Schlafly, Dawkins and the university of Oxford? larronsicut fur in nocte 21:05, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
- I have emailed their information and press office for details. So I'll wait and see what I get back.
- Anyone thought of emailing the university and asking?
[edit] Beer goggles and botany of the institutional Swedish meatball
Do we come up first for anyone else? ħuman
01:06, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
- That is what I get even without the quotation marks, for Australia too. - π 01:45, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
- New Zealand and UK too. However on Sweden we are second after some report about the National Botanical Institute of South Africa. Really looks real now. - π 01:49, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
[edit] A critique of the book, and past section referring to CP
Is there a reason the italicized parts are truncated to such short line lengths? ħuman
01:09, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
- It makes difficult reading, I assumed it was formatted like that in the original? This message brought to you by:
respondand honey 01:14, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
- I don't think it is necessary to preserve typesetting and page width when quoting, and it doesn't look like poetry, and as you say, it makes it hard to read, so I'm a gonna hack out the formatting and let the words flow, like a mountain stream... ħuman
01:16, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
- I don't think it is necessary to preserve typesetting and page width when quoting, and it doesn't look like poetry, and as you say, it makes it hard to read, so I'm a gonna hack out the formatting and let the words flow, like a mountain stream... ħuman
- That whole section seems like it was copied strangely from somewhere else (well, yeah, I know it's a quote). And the last section, the one on the CP article is a fricking formatting mess. What's with all the itals and bolding, it makes what is quoted and what isn't hard to track down. Anyone else want to tackle cleaning it up? ħuman
01:21, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
- Is the whacky emphasis just trying to show a copy/paste effect? If so, why not just say so? ħuman
04:38, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
- I think I tried to clean it up a bit, but I probably failed. ħuman
08:17, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
- No failing there :-) Thanks for cleaning up the mess which I produced by a sloppy copy&paste job from the pdf-document in the first place (sorry...) larronsicut fur in nocte 08:30, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
- I think I tried to clean it up a bit, but I probably failed. ħuman
- Is the whacky emphasis just trying to show a copy/paste effect? If so, why not just say so? ħuman
- That whole section seems like it was copied strangely from somewhere else (well, yeah, I know it's a quote). And the last section, the one on the CP article is a fricking formatting mess. What's with all the itals and bolding, it makes what is quoted and what isn't hard to track down. Anyone else want to tackle cleaning it up? ħuman
[edit] Bravo
Well done guys, this is an excellent rebuttal of a Creationist quote mine.
Генгисunbelieving 08:08, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
- Yeah, this was really great work people - ironically, putting us at #1 on the search engine beginning with "G" when oogling. ħuman
08:18, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
- I think so, too. It was a pity that conservapedia had a monopoly on Nilsson and his wacky concept of emication. larronsicut fur in nocte 08:33, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
- Although now Wikipedia has an article they will probably go top. I also found this at Skepticfiles.
Генгисunbelieving 15:44, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
- Although now Wikipedia has an article they will probably go top. I also found this at Skepticfiles.
- I think so, too. It was a pity that conservapedia had a monopoly on Nilsson and his wacky concept of emication. larronsicut fur in nocte 08:33, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Emication
I think a sister article on Emication would reinforce our search ranking position. Any volunteers?
Генгисunbelieving 17:05, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
- I wrote the wp:Emication section of wp's article, so I'm afraid I'm the natural volunteer. Shouldn't we just make a redirect - and a section at our own article, too? larronsicut fur in nocte 17:15, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
- I hate to sound Kennish but a separate article would reinforce our standing at an internet search-engine beginning with 'G'. Also Nilsson's theory needs debunking on its own account.
Генгисunbelieving 17:20, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
- O-kay larronsicut fur in nocte 17:26, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
- I hate to sound Kennish but a separate article would reinforce our standing at an internet search-engine beginning with 'G'. Also Nilsson's theory needs debunking on its own account.
[edit] Bronze
I just added the {{bronze}} tag: Though the article mentions conservapedia (it was written at first as an direct answer to Ken's articles), it is IMO worthy :-) larronsicut fur in nocte 13:46, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
- This is the sort of thing that RW excels at: covering the factual background of the claimed backing for woomeisters and antiscientists - David Gerard (talk) 14:06, 6 May 2010 (UTC)