RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (500) < ... 164 165 166 167 168 [169] 170 171 172 173 174 ... >   
  Topic: Uncommonly Dense Thread 2, general discussion of Dembski's site< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
Lou FCD



Posts: 5455
Joined: Jan. 2006
(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 19 2009,23:07   
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Jan. 19 2009,23:37)
Quote

I mean, how can anyone seriously describe Wells as a "high genius"?


I've been around Wells from time to time, and I've never seen him take drugs.


That one's on me.

--------------
“Why do creationists have such a hard time with commas?

Linky“. ~ Steve Story, Legend
   
1of63



Posts: 126
Joined: Dec. 2007
(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 20 2009,05:13   
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Jan. 19 2009,22:37)
 
Quote

I mean, how can anyone seriously describe Wells as a "high genius"?


I've been around Wells from time to time, and I've never seen him take drugs.


What about you? After being around him. Not even an aspirin?

--------------
I set expectations at zero, and FL limbos right under them. - Tracy P. Hamilton
  
Reciprocating Bill



Posts: 4265
Joined: Oct. 2006
(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 20 2009,07:13   
Oh, fer Chrissakes. Uncommonly Denyse on Dirac. Well, not Denyse on Dirac, Denyse on a book about Dirac. Well, not Denyse on a book about Dirac, Denyse on a review of a book about Dirac. Well, not Denyse on a review of a book about Dirac, Denyse on an acquaintance on a review of a book about Dirac:
Quote
In his review for The Sunday Times (January 11, 2009) of a new book on the life of quantum physicist Paul Dirac, The Strangest Man: the Hidden Life of Paul Dirac, Quantum Genius The Strangest Man: the Hidden Life of Paul Dirac, Quantum Genius by Graham Farmelo of the Science Museum of London, John Carey begins by noting that Paul Dirac was the greatest British physicist since Newton:

They've changed something in the Matrix.

Her stuttering post concerns Dirac's economy of words, his use of "a deliberately mystifying private language." Inspired, Denyse tries her hand:
 
Quote
The Darwinists should, for example, be writing fiction, along the lines of goo = zoo = you = poo, purely by accident!, for example.

For example.

--------------
Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be.

"The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you."
- David Foster Wallace

"Here’s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."
- Barry Arrington
  
Zachriel



Posts: 2723
Joined: Sep. 2006
(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 20 2009,09:26   
Quote
DaveScot: Professor denies global warming theory

Quote
Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant. Every time you exhale, you exhale air that has 4 percent carbon dioxide. To say that thats a pollutant just boggles my mind. What used to be science has turned into a cult.

People also defecate. That doesn't mean it can't be detrimental to let it accumulate.

In any case, human respiration is carbon neutral. It merely returns the carbon to the atmosphere that was originally fixed by plants. Being a physics professor, William Happer should be aware of this.

Happer adds Hitler, Hitler, Hitler.

Quote
"This is George Orwell. This is the Germans are the master race. The Jews are the scum of the earth. Its that kind of propaganda.


Quote
Andrew Sibley: What is not mentioned by climate change supporters is that according to paleo-geologists the CO2 levels were typically arouned 2000 ppm in the carboniferous to the cretaceous with a global average temperature of 20C and an abundance of life.

There is little evidence that global climate change will end life on Earth. However, global warming will raise sea levels and change weather patterns. That means the loss of fertile coastal plains, loss of critical urban centers, and desertification of much existing arable land. And this could result in mass migration and ensuing political instability.

The good news is that this is a soluble problem.

--------------

You never step on the same tard twice—for it's not the same tard and you're not the same person.
   
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006
(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 20 2009,09:30   
I believe Andew Sibley is a creationist and as such he does not beleve that "the carboniferous to the cretaceous" actually happened.

Again, I have no active sock at the moment that could go point this out to him.

Anybody?

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gaugers work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings
  
didymos



Posts: 1828
Joined: Mar. 2008
(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 20 2009,11:37   
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Jan. 20 2009,05:13)
Oh, fer Chrissakes. Uncommonly Denyse on Dirac. Well, not Denyse on Dirac, Denyse on a book about Dirac. Well, not Denyse on a book about Dirac, Denyse on a review of a book about Dirac. Well, not Denyse on a review of a book about Dirac, Denyse on an acquaintance on a review of a book about Dirac:
Quote
In his review for The Sunday Times (January 11, 2009) of a new book on the life of quantum physicist Paul Dirac, The Strangest Man: the Hidden Life of Paul Dirac, Quantum Genius The Strangest Man: the Hidden Life of Paul Dirac, Quantum Genius by Graham Farmelo of the Science Museum of London, John Carey begins by noting that Paul Dirac was the greatest British physicist since Newton:

They've changed something in the Matrix.

Her stuttering post concerns Dirac's economy of words, his use of "a deliberately mystifying private language." Inspired, Denyse tries her hand:
 
Quote
The Darwinists should, for example, be writing fiction, along the lines of goo = zoo = you = poo, purely by accident!, for example.

For example.

My favorite bit of Dirac-lore was Pauli's line:

Quote
Well, I'd say that also our friend Dirac has got a religion and the first commandment of this religion is 'God does not exist and Paul Dirac is his prophet.'


--------------
I wouldn't be bothered reading about the selfish gene because it has never been identified. -- Denyse O'Leary, professional moron
Again "how much". I don't think that's a good way to be quantitative.-- gpuccio
  
Nils Ruhr



Posts: 42
Joined: Nov. 2008
(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 20 2009,12:24   
From now on Darwinists shouldn't claim, that ID has no Peer-Review Papers:

http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelli....erature
  
J-Dog



Posts: 4402
Joined: Dec. 2006
(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 20 2009,12:43   
Quote (Nils Ruhr @ Jan. 20 2009,12:24)
From now on Darwinists shouldn't claim, that ID has no Peer-Review Papers:

http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelli....erature

And these are related to ID how?  Other than being written by a couple of IDiots?

--------------
Come on Tough Guy, do the little dance of ID impotence you do so well. - Louis to Joe G 2/10

Gullibility is not a virtue - Quidam on Dembski's belief in the Bible Code Faith Healers & ID 7/08

UD is an Unnatural Douchemagnet. - richardthughes 7/11
  
Nils Ruhr



Posts: 42
Joined: Nov. 2008
(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 20 2009,12:47   
Quote (J-Dog @ Jan. 20 2009,12:43)
 
Quote (Nils Ruhr @ Jan. 20 2009,12:24)
From now on Darwinists shouldn't claim, that ID has no Peer-Review Papers:

http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelli....erature

And these are related to ID how? Other than being written by a couple of IDiots?

Quote
William Dembski

Two forthcoming peer-reviewed pro-ID articles in the math/eng literature
  
Bueller_007



Posts: 39
Joined: Nov. 2008
(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 20 2009,12:51   
Quote (Nils Ruhr @ Jan. 20 2009,11:24)
From now on Darwinists shouldn't claim, that ID has no Peer-Review Papers:

http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelli....erature

Strange.  I read through them, and noticed that there were no mentions of 'design' in either one.

Dembski also failed to say when the papers had been accepted, or even received.
  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006
(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 20 2009,12:54   
Quote (Nils Ruhr @ Jan. 20 2009,12:47)
 
Quote (J-Dog @ Jan. 20 2009,12:43)
Quote (Nils Ruhr @ Jan. 20 2009,12:24)
From now on Darwinists shouldn't claim, that ID has no Peer-Review Papers:

http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelli....erature

And these are related to ID how? Other than being written by a couple of IDiots?

 
Quote
William Dembski

Two forthcoming peer-reviewed pro-ID articles in the math/eng literature

On PT Nils said:
 
Quote
The function of your hat is the intention of the designer. You can furthermore for example logically assume that the function of your hat is to be weared, since you bought it in a clothes shop. The bike is an analogy to a biological system. We dont know what the intention of the designer is. In this case the function is defined arbitary.

So, Nils, as you know so much about it and as your wisdom is apparent to all could you tell me how those two papers support ID other then that William Dembski says so?

If they are pro-ID articles then what aspect of ID is it that they support?

Or do you take every word Dembski says at face value and uncritically?

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gaugers work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings
  
Nils Ruhr



Posts: 42
Joined: Nov. 2008
(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 20 2009,13:07   
@oldmanintheskydidntdoit: I feel honored that you remember me from PT, however you should know that one of my postings was censored, because I wrote that Carl Zimmer was wrong. It seems like you're the one who forbid open criticism.

 
Quote
The Search for a Search: Measuring the Information Cost of Higher Level Search
William A. Dembski and Robert J. Marks I

Abstract: Many searches are needle-in-the-haystack problems, looking for small targets in large spaces. In such cases, blind search can stand no hope of success. Success, instead, requires an assisted search.


assisted search = intelligent designer

This is clearly POSITIVE evidence for ID. Dembski's articles are peer-reviewed, which means they are good quality stuff! Stop being such a bad loser and accept that ID has peer-reviewd articles.
  
olegt



Posts: 1405
Joined: Dec. 2006
(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 20 2009,13:19   
Quote (Nils Ruhr @ Jan. 20 2009,13:07)
This is clearly POSITIVE evidence for ID. Dembski's articles are peer-reviewed, which means they are good quality stuff! Stop being such a bad loser and accept that ID has peer-reviewd articles.

Niels,

Publishing a paper in a peer-reviewed journal is not exactly a big accomplishment.  If you want me to congratulate Dembski on rising to the level of a graduate student, I can do that.  Break out the champagne!

--------------
If you are not:
Galapagos Finch
please Logout
  
Nils Ruhr



Posts: 42
Joined: Nov. 2008
(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 20 2009,13:27   
Quote
Quote (Nils Ruhr @ Jan. 20 2009,11:24)
From now on Darwinists shouldn't claim, that ID has no Peer-Review Papers:

http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelli....erature

Strange. I read through them, and noticed that there were no mentions of 'design' in either one.

Dembski also failed to say when the papers had been accepted, or even received.


Dr. Dembski uses the term "assisted search" as implication for intelligent design. This intention is clear from the fact, that he posted the good news on uncommendescent.

Regarding publishing:  
Quote
both should be published later this year
  
Bueller_007



Posts: 39
Joined: Nov. 2008
(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 20 2009,13:29   
Quote (Nils Ruhr @ Jan. 20 2009,12:07)
@oldmanintheskydidntdoit: I feel honored that you remember me from PT, however you should know that one of my postings was censored, because I wrote that Carl Zimmer was wrong. It seems like you're the one who forbid open criticism.

Quote
The Search for a Search: Measuring the Information Cost of Higher Level Search
William A. Dembski and Robert J. Marks I

Abstract: Many searches are needle-in-the-haystack problems, looking for small targets in large spaces. In such cases, blind search can stand no hope of success. Success, instead, requires an assisted search.


assisted search = intelligent designer

This is clearly POSITIVE evidence for ID. Dembski's articles are peer-reviewed, which means they are good quality stuff! Stop being such a bad loser and accept that ID has peer-reviewd articles.

Nice equivocation on the word 'assisted'.  That's not what an assisted search means here.  If you pull your head out of your arse and actually read Dembski's paper, you'll see:

Quote
Conservation of information theorems [15], [44], es-
pecially the No Free Lunch Theorems (NFLTs) [28],
[51], [52], show that without prior information about
the search environment or the target sought, one search
strategy is, on average, as good as any other. Accord-
ingly, the dif?culty of an unassistedor blindsearch
problem [9] is ?xed and can be measured using what
is called its endogenous information. The amount of
information externally introduced into an assisted search
can then be measured and is called the active information
of the search [33]


Now can you think of any way other than a designer that 'information about the target' could be introduced WITHOUT an intelligent designer?  (Hint, it's EXACTLY how evolution works.  See http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=iEWZ-O-JNlU and jump to 2:50 for a clue.)
  
J-Dog



Posts: 4402
Joined: Dec. 2006
(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 20 2009,13:31   
Quote (Bueller_007 @ Jan. 20 2009,13:29)
Now can you think of any way other than a designer that 'information about the target' could be introduced WITHOUT an intelligent designer? (Hint, it's EXACTLY how evolution works. See http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=iEWZ-O-JNlU and jump to 2:50 for a clue.)

Bueller wins the InterTubes for today!

Nils - We have some lovely parting gifts, thanks for playing,

Buh bye!

--------------
Come on Tough Guy, do the little dance of ID impotence you do so well. - Louis to Joe G 2/10

Gullibility is not a virtue - Quidam on Dembski's belief in the Bible Code Faith Healers & ID 7/08

UD is an Unnatural Douchemagnet. - richardthughes 7/11
  
Nils Ruhr



Posts: 42
Joined: Nov. 2008
(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 20 2009,13:31   
Quote (olegt @ Jan. 20 2009,13:19)
 
Quote (Nils Ruhr @ Jan. 20 2009,13:07)
This is clearly POSITIVE evidence for ID. Dembski's articles are peer-reviewed, which means they are good quality stuff! Stop being such a bad loser and accept that ID has peer-reviewd articles.

Niels,

Publishing a paper in a peer-reviewed journal is not exactly a big accomplishment. If you want me to congratulate Dembski on rising to the level of a graduate student, I can do that. Break out the champagne!

@olegt: I just want Darwinists to acknowledge that ID has peer-revied papers published with positive ID evidence (of course technically the articles are not published yet).
If you think those papers contain errors, it's up to you to prove it.
  
Bueller_007



Posts: 39
Joined: Nov. 2008
(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 20 2009,13:32   
Quote (Nils Ruhr @ Jan. 20 2009,12:27)
[quote]Dr. Dembski uses the term "assisted search" as implication for intelligent design. This intention is clear from the fact, that he posted the good news on uncommendescent.

Regarding publishing:
Quote
both should be published later this year

Yes.  As I said.  Journals will supply the author with a submission and acceptance date.  He has provided us with neither.  Merely saying "Both  should be published later this year" tells us absolutely NOTHING about the papers' statuses.
  
bystander



Posts: 301
Joined: Oct. 2005
(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 20 2009,14:05   
Quote (Nils Ruhr @ Jan. 21 2009,06:31)
Quote (olegt @ Jan. 20 2009,13:19)
Quote (Nils Ruhr @ Jan. 20 2009,13:07)
This is clearly POSITIVE evidence for ID. Dembski's articles are peer-reviewed, which means they are good quality stuff! Stop being such a bad loser and accept that ID has peer-reviewd articles.

Niels,

Publishing a paper in a peer-reviewed journal is not exactly a big accomplishment. If you want me to congratulate Dembski on rising to the level of a graduate student, I can do that. Break out the champagne!

@olegt: I just want Darwinists to acknowledge that ID has peer-revied papers published with positive ID evidence (of course technically the articles are not published yet).
If you think those papers contain errors, it's up to you to prove it.

The problem is that it is a fundamental error that all IDists make. The environment provides the assisted search by organisms that are more fit reproducing more often.

All Dembski is doing is saying that if the environment is totally random, that is, one moment an organism is on land, the next it is a hundred metres under water and the next moment in a volcano then evolution would probably not work. Which is pretty much well DUH.
  
Maya



Posts: 702
Joined: Dec. 2007
(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 20 2009,14:09   
With regard to Dembski's peer-reviewed papers:

I admit to only having an undergrad background in math, and to not working through the equations in Dembski's papers myself, but don't the No Free Lunch theorems only apply in a problem space that is random?  Has any IDer tried to show that that assumption is applicable in genome space?  I'd love to hear them explain the incredible unlikelihood that a high percentage of zygotes are viable, even though their genes differ from both parents.
  
Maya



Posts: 702
Joined: Dec. 2007
(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 20 2009,14:11   
Quote (bystander @ Jan. 20 2009,14:05)
The problem is that it is a fundamental error that all IDists make. The environment provides the assisted search by organisms that are more fit reproducing more often.

All Dembski is doing is saying that if the environment is totally random, that is, one moment an organism is on land, the next it is a hundred metres under water and the next moment in a volcano then evolution would probably not work. Which is pretty much well DUH.

Stop posting my thoughts before I think them, psychic fiend!
  
Albatrossity2



Posts: 2780
Joined: Mar. 2007
(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 20 2009,14:16   
Quote (bystander @ Jan. 20 2009,14:05)
The problem is that it is a fundamental error that all IDists make. The environment provides the assisted search by organisms that are more fit reproducing more often.

All Dembski is doing is saying that if the environment is totally random, that is, one moment an organism is on land, the next it is a hundred metres under water and the next moment in a volcano then evolution would probably not work. Which is pretty much well DUH.

And even if that error was forgivable (which it isn't), this is still NOT positive evidence for ID.

When will IDiots figure out that arguments (even stupid ones) against evolutionary theory are not positive evidence for ID? Where does anything in these papers point toward design, or a designer?

Wake me up when Billy or Gloppy publish a peer-reviewed article in a biology journal where they describe evidence for the designer's fingerprints...

--------------
Flesh of the sky, child of the sky, the mind
Has been obligated from the beginning
To create an ordered universe
As the only possible proof of its own inheritance.
- Pattiann Rogers
   
Bueller_007



Posts: 39
Joined: Nov. 2008
(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 20 2009,14:37   
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Jan. 20 2009,13:16)
Quote (bystander @ Jan. 20 2009,14:05)
The problem is that it is a fundamental error that all IDists make. The environment provides the assisted search by organisms that are more fit reproducing more often.

All Dembski is doing is saying that if the environment is totally random, that is, one moment an organism is on land, the next it is a hundred metres under water and the next moment in a volcano then evolution would probably not work. Which is pretty much well DUH.

And even if that error was forgivable (which it isn't), this is still NOT positive evidence for ID.

When will IDiots figure out that arguments (even stupid ones) against evolutionary theory are not positive evidence for ID? Where does anything in these papers point toward design, or a designer?

Wake me up when Billy or Gloppy publish a peer-reviewed article in a biology journal where they describe evidence for the designer's fingerprints...

Yes, we're still all waiting for the day that someone will take "The Definitive Creationism Challenge".

1) Formulate a novel positive prediction/hypothesis from ID 'theory'.
2) Attempt to falsify that prediction.
  
JohnW



Posts: 3217
Joined: Aug. 2006
(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 20 2009,16:07   
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Jan. 20 2009,12:16)
When will IDiots figure out that arguments (even stupid ones) against evolutionary theory are not positive evidence for ID?

The smart ones figured that out years ago.  They also figured out that their target audience (which isn't scientists) couldn't care less.  They just want some sciency-sounding apologetics, so they can feel secure in their belief that some very, very clever Christians have disproven that nasty Darwin.

They're not trying to do science.  They're trying to lead a cargo cult.

--------------
Math is just a language of reality. Its a waste of time to know it. - Robert Byers

There isn't any probability that the letter d is in the word "mathematics"...  The correct answer would be "not even 0" - JoeG
  
midwifetoad



Posts: 4003
Joined: Mar. 2008
(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 20 2009,16:22   
Quote
I admit to only having an undergrad background in math, and to not working through the equations in Dembski's papers myself, but don't the No Free Lunch theorems only apply in a problem space that is random? Has any IDer tried to show that that assumption is applicable in genome space? I'd love to hear them explain the incredible unlikelihood that a high percentage of zygotes are viable, even though their genes differ from both parents.

Possibly because evolution isn't searching for a target or trying to reach a goal. I'm not sure why the search metaphor is used.

What happens is that new combination occasionally have useful properties, but the properties are not necessarily foreseen, even by the selecting agent.

I'm not convinced it is easy to model a process that creates emergent properties.

--------------
Any version of ID consistent with all the evidence is indistinguishable from evolution.
  
Reciprocating Bill



Posts: 4265
Joined: Oct. 2006
(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 20 2009,16:49   
Quote (Bueller_007 @ Jan. 20 2009,14:32)
Yes. As I said. Journals will supply the author with a submission and acceptance date. He has provided us with neither. Merely saying "Both should be published later this year" tells us absolutely NOTHING about the papers' statuses.

The science of Publication Detection does not attempt to characterize the publisher. PD infers the act of publication but does not make assertions regarding the publisher or publishers, the venue in which publication occurs, or the date of publication. Publication detection is not a mechanistic theory, and its not PD's task to match your pathetic level of detail in telling mechanistic stories. If PD is correct and a publisher is responsible and indispensable for certain documents, then it makes no sense to try to ape your method of connecting the dots.



Edited by Lou FCD on Jan. 20 2009,20:40

--------------
Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be.

"The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you."
- David Foster Wallace

"Here’s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."
- Barry Arrington
  
khan



Posts: 1554
Joined: May 2007
(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 20 2009,16:50   
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Jan. 20 2009,17:49)
Quote (Bueller_007 @ Jan. 20 2009,14:32)
Yes. As I said. Journals will supply the author with a submission and acceptance date. He has provided us with neither. Merely saying "Both should be published later this year" tells us absolutely NOTHING about the papers' statuses.

The science of Publication Detection does not attempt to characterize the publication. PD infers the act of publication but does not make assertions regarding the publisher or publishers, the venue in which publication occurs, or the date of publication. Publication detection is not a mechanistic theory, and its not PD's task to match your pathetic level of detail in telling mechanistic stories. If PD is correct and a publisher is responsible and indispensable for certain documents, then it makes no sense to try to ape your method of connecting the dots.

Excellent!

--------------
"It's as if all those words, in their hurry to escape from the loony, have fallen over each other, forming scrambled heaps of meaninglessness." -damitall

That's so fucking stupid it merits a wing in the museum of stupid. -midwifetoad

Frequency is just the plural of wavelength...
-JoeG
  
Reciprocating Bill



Posts: 4265
Joined: Oct. 2006
(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 20 2009,16:55   
Quote (khan @ Jan. 20 2009,17:50)
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Jan. 20 2009,17:49)
Quote (Bueller_007 @ Jan. 20 2009,14:32)
Yes. As I said. Journals will supply the author with a submission and acceptance date. He has provided us with neither. Merely saying "Both should be published later this year" tells us absolutely NOTHING about the papers' statuses.

The science of Publication Detection does not attempt to characterize the publication. PD infers the act of publication but does not make assertions regarding the publisher or publishers, the venue in which publication occurs, or the date of publication. Publication detection is not a mechanistic theory, and its not PD's task to match your pathetic level of detail in telling mechanistic stories. If PD is correct and a publisher is responsible and indispensable for certain documents, then it makes no sense to try to ape your method of connecting the dots.

Excellent!

This represents peer review. Opponents of PD should stop being bad loosers and accept that PD has peer-reviewd blog posts.

--------------
Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be.

"The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you."
- David Foster Wallace

"Here’s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."
- Barry Arrington
  
JohnW



Posts: 3217
Joined: Aug. 2006
(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 20 2009,17:09   
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Jan. 20 2009,14:49)
Quote (Bueller_007 @ Jan. 20 2009,14:32)
Yes. As I said. Journals will supply the author with a submission and acceptance date. He has provided us with neither. Merely saying "Both should be published later this year" tells us absolutely NOTHING about the papers' statuses.

The science of Publication Detection does not attempt to characterize the publisher. PD infers the act of publication but does not make assertions regarding the publisher or publishers, the venue in which publication occurs, or the date of publication. Publication detection is not a mechanistic theory, and its not PD's task to match your pathetic level of detail in telling mechanistic stories. If PD is correct and a publisher is responsible and indispensable for certain documents, then it makes no sense to try to ape your method of connecting the dots.

Has anyone won POTW this afternoon?

--------------
Math is just a language of reality. Its a waste of time to know it. - Robert Byers

There isn't any probability that the letter d is in the word "mathematics"...  The correct answer would be "not even 0" - JoeG
  
Ptaylor



Posts: 1180
Joined: Aug. 2006
(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 20 2009,17:39   
Quote (Nils Ruhr @ Jan. 20 2009,13:31)
@olegt: I just want Darwinists to acknowledge that ID has peer-revied papers published with positive ID evidence (of course technically the articles are not published yet).
If you think those papers contain errors, it's up to you to prove it.

I realise it's just a typo, but just for clarity - you meant reviled, right?

--------------
We no longer say: “Another day; another bad day for Darwinism.” We now say: “Another day since the time Darwinism was disproved.”
-PaV, Uncommon Descent, 19 June 2016
  
  14997 replies since July 17 2008,19:00 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (500) < ... 164 165 166 167 168 [169] 170 171 172 173 174 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

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