Joined: April 2007
|Quote (Texas Teach @ Oct. 01 2015,17:13)|
|Quote (JohnW @ Oct. 01 2015,17:03)|
|Quote (OgreMkV @ Oct. 01 2015,07:03)|
|Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 01 2015,07:50)|
|Quote (Dr.GH @ Sep. 11 2015,20:47)|
|I wrote the confidentiality agreement all the expert advisers agreed to for the NCSE.|
I didn't put in a time limit, but as I wrote it, I think that 10 years is enough.
Actually, I read the court scripts from NCSE many times and I am planning to write science book about the SECOND DOVER-LIKE TRIAL in where both the supporters of ToE and my new discoveries will literally fight in the scientific court of law...
It would be the battle between science vs science, experiments vs experiments and reality vs reality...
It would be fun...
Or you could write a paper, have it published, then discussed... like actual scientists do.
Or do you follow the Dembski logic where you have realized that you'd get more money from a book and your "scientific paper" would get tossed in the trash by any reasonable journal?
Where's the fun in that, Ogre? I, like Postrado, want to see a literal fight.
It's traditional for the party who was challenged to choose the weapons: shall we say custard pies?
"[...] the type of information we find in living systems is beyond the creative means of purely material processes [...] Who or what is such an ultimate source of information? [...] from a theistic perspective, such an information source would presumably have to be God."
- William Dembski -