RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (13) < [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... >   
  Topic: Southstar's thread< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4491
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 18 2011,04:21   

Quote (Southstar @ Dec. 18 2011,01:57)
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Dec. 17 2011,07:54)
Bio-Complexity != Biologos

Bio-Complexity is disreputable and should be known to be so.

Okay and is there an association of scientific writers/scientists who have made a statement in that sense? Or at the very least single scientists that have taken apart the "research" done there?

This comes out as the ID crowed use this particular organisation calling it the only "true" science based organisation which no other scientist has refuted.

Thanks
Marty

I'm not sure why one would expect an illegitimate operation to get respectful treatment in the technical literature. There's a variety of online essays going into why Douglas Axe's numbers are cooked, if that's what you want. But the pretense that balderdash is only rebutted if the rebuttals appear in the technical literature is a non-starter.

--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

    
  366 replies since Nov. 08 2011,06:46 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (13) < [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

[ Read the Board Rules ] | [Useful Links] | [Evolving Designs]