Joined: Feb. 2008
|Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 16 2012,17:20)|
|I'll try to explain it another way.|
This theory does not meet expectations because of it not having been considered that a Theory of Intelligent Design would have to come from a place like Planet Source Code where what is most important is the source code, perfect grammar optional.
Only makes sense it would not come from somewhere you're not used to, that you here need to be to really get around in the science being pioneered. It's here not just the opinion of the community that I am showing it's where the theory is from where it's not at all a new thing that out of the blue arrived there, the Intelligence Generator did well too.
Hopefully that better translates why meeting expectations that the theory must be judged by its peer-reviewed lab journal published results is rather pointless. It becomes a way of making it seem like it's a crime for not instead having brought lab results to someone just being pompous.
Yes. Thank you. That clarifies things immensely.
I now understand what we are dealing with.
DS: "The explantory filter is as robust as the data that is used with it."
David Klinghoffer: ""I'm an IDiot"