Joined: June 2006
quizzlesticks, who still hasn't conceded that Kazmer's article was not peer-reviewed, digs himself in deeper at OE:
Not only does quizzlesticks not know what "peer review" means (although that doesn't stop him from blogging about it), he also doesn't know what a scientist is. Dembski certainly isn't one, and he's definitely not "reputable" by any reasonable standard.
|I agree that talk of cancer cures is highly speculative, but lets not just laugh Kazmer's ideas out of the court of science. That's what darwinists like Richard Dawkins do to reputable ID scientists like Behe and Dembski.|
Ah, so that's why science has been so unproductive over the past 200 years.
|Kazmer's theories are unbound by the restrictive thinking that has plagued the last 200 years of materialist science and philosophy.|
"I wasn't aware that classical physics had established a position on whether intelligent agents exercising free were constrained by 2LOT into increasing entropy." -DaveScot