RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (36) < ... 5 6 7 8 9 [10] 11 12 13 14 15 ... >   
  Topic: From "LUCA" thread, Paley's Ghost can back up his assertions< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 12 2005,04:48   

Quote
An athlete who is educated and a good person.  He sounds like a fine role model.  It's too bad that there aren't more like him.  But, what's your point, Paley?

 That appearances can mislead. After all, very few people would give this man a chance in a streetfight against, say, an in-prime Muhammad Ali, but his accomplishments suggest otherwise (don't laugh; even world class strikers/kickboxers tend to get clobbered in mixed martial arts settings). Likewise, scientists deride the credentials and reputation of ID folk, but this doesn't mitigate the quality of ID argumentation. When evos focus on arguments and facts, the debate moves forward; when they don't, it doesn't. Y'all have been pretty good to me so far, and I just don't want any backsliding. I'll try to get the model together as soon as I can.

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 12 2005,07:30   

Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Dec. 12 2005,10:48)
When evos focus on arguments and facts, the debate moves forward; when they don't, it doesn't.

The same could be said of IDists. When the argument devolves into special pleading and ad hominem attacks, it all turns into a monumental waste of time.

--------------
2006 MVD award for most dogged defense of scientific sanity

"Atheism is a religion the same way NOT collecting stamps is a hobby." —Scott Adams

  
cogzoid



Posts: 234
Joined: Sep. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 12 2005,08:01   

Quote
Likewise, scientists deride the credentials and reputation of ID folk, but this doesn't mitigate the quality of ID argumentation.
Maybe you're reading other stuff than I.  But mostly I see scientists attacking the claims and arguments of anti-evolution folks.  And scientists back up their attacks with some hard-hitting science.  For example, have you read Meyer's Hopeless Monster at Panda's Thumb?  It is 6000 words attacking Meyer's arguments.  I'm not going to claim that all scientists argue above the belt though.  Overall, I think your complaint is unwarranted.  If you don't think the ad hominems are worthwhile, don't read them.  There are plenty of scientists that address the arguments of creationists alone.  You can spend your energies addressing these folks.

-Dan

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 12 2005,08:27   

Quote
For example, have you read Meyer's Hopeless Monster at Panda's Thumb?  It is 6000 words attacking Meyer's arguments.  I'm not going to claim that all scientists argue above the belt though.

It's true that some scientists play by the rules; this is why I wrote:
Quote
When evos focus on arguments and facts, the debate moves forward; when they don't, it doesn't.

You could have also mentioned the critique of Behe/Snokes; that essay was very good. But both papers responded to peer-reviewed literature, so a higher standard of argumentation was necessary. Why can't this be the default standard for all replies? By the way, I'm not including you or Murphy in my complaint. You both rise above the usual level of discourse. So do Elsberry, Theobald, and Cartwright.

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
Tim Hague



Posts: 32
Joined: Nov. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 12 2005,21:53   

Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Dec. 12 2005,10:48)
Likewise, scientists deride the credentials and reputation of ID folk, but this doesn't mitigate the quality of ID argumentation.

Mitigate - "to make something less harmful, unpleasant or bad".  From the Cambridge Dictionary.

I'm not sure your sentence means what you intended, but I agree that there is not much we can do to mitigate the quality of the ID argumentation.  

I also agree with the overall impression that it's the ID folk who do most of the ad-hominems against the credentials and reputations of the evolution supporters, not the other way round (Salvador vs Flank being another prime example on this board).

   
cogzoid



Posts: 234
Joined: Sep. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 13 2005,08:43   

Righti-o, we all agree.  Adressing arguments: good.  Ad hominems: bad.  Appearances: decieving.  Death and taxes: inevitable.  Let's get on with the universe spinning around us.

-Dan

  
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 13 2005,09:37   

Quote (cogzoid @ Dec. 13 2005,14:43)
Righti-o, we all agree.  Adressing arguments: good.  Ad hominems: bad.  Appearances: decieving.  Death and taxes: inevitable.  Let's get on with the universe spinning around us.

-Dan

I'm still waiting for Bill's explanation for the CMB...but we haven't even found out yet whether his "quintessence" interacts with the Higgs field.

--------------
2006 MVD award for most dogged defense of scientific sanity

"Atheism is a religion the same way NOT collecting stamps is a hobby." —Scott Adams

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 13 2005,10:43   

Quote
Mitigate - "to make something less harmful, unpleasant or bad".  From the Cambridge Dictionary.

I'm not sure your sentence means what you intended, but I agree that there is not much we can do to mitigate the quality of the ID argumentation.  

 I'm aware of the legal meaning, but doesn't the word also mean "to lesson the impact of"? If not, I apologise.
Quote
Adressing arguments: good.  Ad hominems: bad.  Appearances: decieving.  Death and taxes: inevitable.  Let's get on with the universe spinning around us.

 I agree. Part of the delay is my fault; I couldn't resist contributing to another thread. But I'm working on it.....

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 15 2005,07:57   



******      It's Clobberin' Time!      ******









Now, the brighter bulbs in the evolutionistic community are aware of the differences in spin statistics between fermions and bosons. Bosons must be symmetric under Schrödinger wave function operations*, while fermions must be antisymmetric under similar operation. This wave function operation can be used to determine the probability that two particles can be found in the same quantum state.  For bosons the equation is:





While the analogous one for fermions is:



Now we know that 1 and 2 are the subscripts for the wave functions acting on particular particles, while a and b are their quantum states.  For the fermions, even the dumbest evolutionist can comprehend that the probability of two fermions being in the same state is zero, while for the bosons it is finite*. The property that makes this possible is spin. This is a very abstract concept described in terms of statistics, and like complex specified information, tends to be misunderstood or denied by evolutionists because their amoral ontology teaches them only material objects are part of objective reality.

When Jesus taught ethical imperatives in parables, the evolutionists of his day responded by demanding they, “Tell us plainly.” Likewise, today’s evolutionists reject non-material realities by demanding “evidence” on materialistic terms. The non-material character of spin statistics and moral imperatives alike can not be adjusted to their demands for “evidence,” but, like Jesus, I shall not let the cup I have been given pass from me.

Spin can be thought of as the number of rotations it takes to move something around and have it come back to its original place. Bosons have an even integer spin, so every time they turn around they are exactly the same, and are hence, indistinguishable. Since things that are truly indistinguishable are alike, it follows that all of them can be in the same state and it would be impossible to tell them apart. No doubt, there will be some objections to this idea. Two ordinary objects that look alike such as Jack Daniels bottles (I know evolutionist are very fond of this product, so I am trying to bring this into your world.) that look alike actually are distinguishable, but you must look very closely, for the bottles at the gay bar, the ACLU office, and the Dungeons and Dragons coven all have different fingerprints on them. Hence they still are distinguishable, and can not be molded into a single bottle, unlike bosons. I understand this concept because it is like the Trinity. G-d is three beings, yet all of them are indistinguishable, and can exist as a single state.

Fermions by contrast, have fractional spins and hence need to be turned around at least twice to come back to the way they were. Since most ordinary matter is fermions, we tend to be more familiar with their properties. These are the material particles that can do  generate magnetic fields, something that bosons can not.




This is an illustration of how a spin-1/2 particle behaves. It needs to go around twice before it is back to its old self.



This is the same sort of thing for a boson, every time it turns around it is always the same.


Now, what does this have to do with quintessence? Quintessence has a very special kind of spin. The spin of quintessence is 1+i. This enables it to turn around in hypercomplex space yet maintain certain fermion-like properties while in our own. Like a boson, quintessence particles can all exist in the same state, enabling it to have superfuild-like properties of a Bose-Einstein condensate yet still create a magnetic field that holds in place all of the excess charge in the Empyrean that is the source of the back ground temperature.  

Because of its BEC properties, it can slow down the speed of light. The speed of light c in our space is merely a function of the near-earth quintessence flux density, our near the sphere of the fixed stars the speed of light is much faster, and hence this explains what evolutionists keep referring to as “the redshift” It has nothing to do with some recessional velocity of stars proportional to their distance, but only to changes in c corresponding to changes in quintessence flux density.




This is how quintessence works relative to fermions and bosons. Every time it turns, it is always the same, but it turns in hypercomplex space, leaving its properties in our space varied.


* These equations can actually refer to the creation of particular particles. This in and of itself violates evolutionistic ontology. While perhaps getting the details wrong,this great man did have a powerful intuition of how subatomic physics refuted evolutionism

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 15 2005,08:10   

Quote
Forget the Cepheid variables; I wonder when gravity will enter the discussion. We've only gotten through two (or is it one?) of four forces. And from what I've understood from Bill so far (which admittedly isn't much), I'm beginning to wonder if gravity even figures into GOP's TOE at all.



Gravity is a property of earth and water to move toward the center of the universe, it is not a property of air, fire, or quintessence. The rest of the universe is sustained by strictly electromagnetic forces.

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 15 2005,08:37   

Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Dec. 15 2005,13:57)
Now, the brighter bulbs in the evolutionistic community are aware of the differences in spin statistics between fermions and bosons.

Why the constant jibes at "evolutionists" when talking about particle physics? I doubt that many evolutionary biologists have more than the foggiest notion of what you're talking about. The differences between bosons and fermions (or even protons and neutrons, for that matter) are pretty much completely irrelevant to their field of study.

You've made your feelings about evolutionary biologists pretty plain, Bill, but the constant insults about their hazy understanding of science that's way, way outside their field of study smacks of nothing so much as crankiness. I wonder if your knowledge of, say, the Krebs cycle is any more detailed than their knowledge of the carbon cycle of nucleosynthesis.

--------------
2006 MVD award for most dogged defense of scientific sanity

"Atheism is a religion the same way NOT collecting stamps is a hobby." —Scott Adams

  
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 15 2005,08:47   

Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Dec. 15 2005,14:10)
Gravity is a property of earth and water to move toward the center of the universe, it is not a property of air, fire, or quintessence. The rest of the universe is sustained by strictly electromagnetic forces.

I'm so disappointed. So this means none of the observations I listed a few pages ago will ever get any kind of explanation, Bill? And I've been waiting all this time...

But while we're here, I have another observation. Air pressure is higher at sea level than it is at 30,000 feet. But air does not have a tendency to move towards the center of the universe (i.e., the earth, I'm guessing), so what causes the pressure gradient?

Or do I need to wait until we're finished discussing the subatomic properties of "quintessence"?

--------------
2006 MVD award for most dogged defense of scientific sanity

"Atheism is a religion the same way NOT collecting stamps is a hobby." —Scott Adams

  
cogzoid



Posts: 234
Joined: Sep. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 15 2005,09:53   

You are too much, Paley.  And with Jack T. Chick as a coup de grace?  Thanks for making my day.

  
cogzoid



Posts: 234
Joined: Sep. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 15 2005,13:15   

This is more like it:


Quote
Now, the brighter bulbs in the evolutionistic community are aware of the differences in spin statistics between fermions and bosons. Bosons must be symmetric under Schrödinger wave function operations*, while fermions must be antisymmetric under similar operation.
Brighter bulbs don't conflate the language of science.  Schrodinger's Wave Equation is not an Operator.  When you use made up terms like "Schrödinger wave function operations" it seems like you don't know what you're talking about.  It's more like how a child repeats words that he heard his parents use but doesn't quite understand yet.

Quote
This is a very abstract concept described in terms of statistics, and like complex specified information, tends to be misunderstood or denied by evolutionists because their amoral ontology teaches them only material objects are part of objective reality.
Misunderstood, denied?  By whom?  Who do you think theorized spin, afterall?  I can make baseless claims, too.  Creationists eat babies.  Hitler was a geo-centrist.    

Quote
The non-material character of spin statistics and moral imperatives alike can not be adjusted to their demands for “evidence,” but, like Jesus, I shall not let the cup I have been given pass from me.
Did Jesus tell you about the "non-material character of spin statistics"?  If not, I'd love to hear your source.  And what are these non-material characteristics?  I don't remember the spin of fundamental particles being in the Bible.

Quote
Spin can be thought of as the number of rotations it takes to move something around and have it come back to its original place. Bosons have an even integer spin, so every time they turn around they are exactly the same, and are hence, indistinguishable.
This is really a bad way of getting an intuition for spin.  Spin is wierd.  It is completely intrinsic angular momentum.  It can be shown that for electrons to have the magnetic moment that they have (due to their spin) they would have to spin faster than the speed of light.  Pretending that the little electrons are physically spinning will put you on the wrong path.  Just pretend that particles just have spin, kind of like a "color" or maybe just a name.  This color or name, however, also displays properties of angular momentum.  It's wierd, indeed.

Quote
Because of its BEC properties, it can slow down the speed of light.
Why does it have to be a BEC to do this?  Window glass slows down light, too.

Quote
The speed of light c in our space is merely a function of the near-earth quintessence flux density, our near the sphere of the fixed stars the speed of light is much faster, and hence this explains what evolutionists keep referring to as “the redshift” It has nothing to do with some recessional velocity of stars proportional to their distance, but only to changes in c corresponding to changes in quintessence flux density.
What is this equation that relates quintessence flux to speed of light exactly?

How does your model account for the effect "evolutionists" call gravitational lensing?  

Quote
This is how quintessence works relative to fermions and bosons. Every time it turns, it is always the same, but it turns in hypercomplex space, leaving its properties in our space varied.
What are its properties in our space exactly?  And how do they vary because it moved in "hypercomplex space"?

Quote
* These equations can actually refer to the creation of particular particles. This in and of itself violates evolutionistic ontology.
What violates "evolutionistic" ontology exactly?

-Dan

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 15 2005,15:23   

Quote
I'm so disappointed. So this means none of the observations I listed a few pages ago will ever get any kind of explanation, Bill? And I've been waiting all this time...

  How does this complaint follow from an analysis of my model? My reframing of the gravitational "force" has little to do with your observations, which will all be addressed in due time. Remember the analogy between my theory and the structure of proteins. I must address criticisms of the model's primary structure before tackling its predictions. Paradigm-shattering, nobel-level physics (with a Fields medal on the side) doesn't come easily, even for ectoplasmic folk.

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 15 2005,15:49   

Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Dec. 15 2005,21:23)
  How does this complaint follow from an analysis of my model? My reframing of the gravitational "force" has little to do with your observations, which will all be addressed in due time.

It's just impatience. Given that I posed my questions three weeks ago, I would have hoped we would have made some progress in answering them by now. But I guess given that we're overturning 500 years of physics, involving the work of uncounted thousands of scientists, it was unrealistic of me to anticipate answers in less than one lifetime.

I guess I'll have to leave the questions-asking to Mr. Cogzoid, since the kinds of high-level questions I'm asking will take a few hundred years to answer, at the rate we're going.

Hence the disappointment. That, and the fact that Mr. C seems able repeatedly to make criticisms of your theory you've had difficulty answering.

--------------
2006 MVD award for most dogged defense of scientific sanity

"Atheism is a religion the same way NOT collecting stamps is a hobby." —Scott Adams

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 16 2005,03:44   

Quote
It's just impatience. Given that I posed my questions three weeks ago, I would have hoped we would have made some progress in answering them by now. But I guess given that we're overturning 500 years of physics, involving the work of uncounted thousands of scientists, it was unrealistic of me to anticipate answers in less than one lifetime.

 The hardest part of any journey is taking the first step. But I should have some more time in the upcoming week to flesh out my model. In the meantime, I want to avoid glib answers, especially since I smell a trap.  :D
Quote
Hence the disappointment. That, and the fact that Mr. C seems able repeatedly to make criticisms of your theory you've had difficulty answering.

 Can't have it both ways. If I'm having such "difficulty" answering Cogzoid, then I can't be expected to address other criticisms, now can I? But don't worry: I haven't backed out of a challenge yet, and I'm not going to now............

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
Ved



Posts: 398
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 16 2005,06:28   

Quote
When evos focus on arguments and facts, the debate moves forward; when they don't, it doesn't.

Wow, you're so right!

Quote
Two ordinary objects that look alike such as Jack Daniels bottles (I know evolutionist are very fond of this product, so I am trying to bring this into your world.) that look alike actually are distinguishable, but you must look very closely, for the bottles at the gay bar, the ACLU office, and the Dungeons and Dragons coven all have different fingerprints on them. Hence they still are distinguishable, and can not be molded into a single bottle, unlike bosons.

Thank you so much Mr. Paley for using examples that are familiar to me, I totally understand your argument now. Since I'm so out of touch with the conservative lifestyle, maybe you can answer a question for me. I think you'll see that my question is as relevant to this thread as your above references, so here it is: Does it ever make you nervous to have a supreme being looking over your "shoulder" in the bedroom? I mean, if that's not what he's doing, how else is he going to know you're not sticking it in the wrong place?

Thanks in advance.

  
cogzoid



Posts: 234
Joined: Sep. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 16 2005,08:13   

Quote
In the meantime, I want to avoid glib answers, especially since I smell a trap.
Don't worry, Mr. Paley.  Answering honest questions about your theory shouldn't be a trap.  Unless that trap is inherent in the model you're presenting.  This is how science is done.  You come up with a theory and others try to find reasons why it doesn't make sense.  If it stands up, it stands up.  If you get "trapped" then perhaps the model needs some work.

-Dan

  
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 16 2005,12:13   

To echo Mr. C: the only trap your theory can fall into, Bill, is its own shortcomings. Given the incredible range of phenomena it must account for in order to displace current theories, that trap is immensely deep.

--------------
2006 MVD award for most dogged defense of scientific sanity

"Atheism is a religion the same way NOT collecting stamps is a hobby." —Scott Adams

  
Alan Fox



Posts: 1436
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 18 2005,00:13   

Mr the ghost of Paley posted on a Panda's Thumb thread

Quote
   Eric wrote:

   I enjoyed science and math in high school, and quickly learned to avoid both in college. The undergraduate math classes were just dreadful—“Theorem. Lemma. Lemma. Proof. Theorem. etc.”. The professors would just stand there and copy proofs from the textbook to the blackboard.


Yes! Eric, yer a man after Paley’s own heart! Math has to be the worst taught subject in the curriculum. Can anyone tell me why math “teachers” at all levels spend 90% of the time transferring the textbook to the blackboard? If you understand the text, the lecture is pointless; if you don’t, the lecture reinforces your insecurities. I recommend Morris Kline for further insight on this issue.
I also find the American habit of shoving algebra down everybody’s throat to be quite dreadful. Outside of percentages, fractions, and statistics, math is completely irrelevant to many people’s lives, yet every child is forced to grind through mapping, domain and set theory. Stooopid.


Could this explain why Bill is struggling to finalise his geocentrism arguments and is a bit tardy with the "gut to gamete" paper. You should have paid more attention in those math classes, Mr P.

  
Dean Morrison



Posts: 216
Joined: Dec. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 18 2005,14:06   

Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Oct. 25 2005,14:14)
By the way, while you guys are wallowing in your C-level IQ's, try to appreciate your correspondence with a member of the K community (the Master, the Master^2, and I'll let you take a stab at the third member).

You're no scientist if you don't know what a degree Kelvin is Paley Ghostey - you are more unsuprisingly more familiar with more American uses for the letter K of course. Who is your wizard by the way? Can you spot him by his sublime maths??
At least that explains your quoting of "White Nationalists" in support of your irrelevant rants:

<i>A lost Paley Ghostey</i>

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 20 2005,06:56   

I go away for a couple of days, and all #### breaks loose.... :D
Quote
You're no scientist if you don't know what a degree Kelvin is Paley Ghostey - you are more unsuprisingly more familiar with more American uses for the letter K of course. Who is your wizard by the way? Can you spot him by his sublime maths??
At least that explains your quoting of "White Nationalists" in support of your irrelevant rants:


    I don't know which is crazier: Morrie's attempts to discourage others from reading my musings by exhuming and displaying old threads from the poster's graveyard, or his Kabbalistic reworking of said posts, jokes, and quotes. Frankly, I thought that Manson's interveaving of the White Album, Revelation, and hippie agitprop would forever remain the standard-bearer of moonstruck Boomer lunacy, but the Yenta has cleared that bar in his flipflops, to mix a half-dozen metaphors (where are you when we need ya, k.e.?). Now, the early suggestion that I like to drag black people behind trucks was just tacky, but the Yenta's become more entertaining as his idee fixe has bloomed kudzu-like throughout the intellectual landscape, so I won't get too offended by his attempts to shut me up, especially when those efforts reveal more about him than they do about yours truly. By the way, here are some questions that he seems to have overlooked:
Quote
O.K. Dean, here's your chance. Please explain how:

1) my citation of The Color of Crime proves that I agree with Jared Taylor's views, especially when I've made my own views perfectly clear on several occasions;
2) the citation is inappropriate, especially when it supports one of my main complaints against most cross-national studies, i.e. that they confound race and religion, driving the very conclusions that they're trying to prove;
3) Jared Taylor's political beliefs render him unable to multiply or divide government figures; and
4) if Jared's study is transparently worthless, nobody can refute it.


 The floor is open, hoss.....

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
Dean Morrison



Posts: 216
Joined: Dec. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 20 2005,15:20   

Can't be arsed .. not that there's a smashing new ruling to read Whiter Shade of Paley..

apart form this fun bit of quote mining which I think sums up the point:

Quote
1) my citation of The Color of Crime proves that I agree with Jared Taylor's views; ...nobody can refute it.


Why should IDiots have all the fun.

:p

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 21 2005,06:42   

Quote
apart form this fun bit of quote mining which I think sums up the point:

 Quite frankly, this is no worse than your previous efforts; the honesty is a nice touch, however.
Quote
Can't be arsed .. not that there's a smashing new ruling to read Whiter Shade of Paley..

 Read your ruling, then. My questions aren't going anywhere. In the meantime, here's a quiz for the lurkers:

 What source really inspired Paley's use of "Master" and "Wizard"?

Hint #1: It was made into a movie that nerds love to quote

Hint #2:
Quote
How many times must I wait while you scramble after your foil?


  You have no one but yourselves to blame if you whiff on this one.....

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
cogzoid



Posts: 234
Joined: Sep. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 21 2005,08:41   

Paley,

I hope you're not giving up on geocentricism.  You can't leave us hanging right after introducing the complex spin of your quintessence condensate ether crystal.

-Dan

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 21 2005,09:14   

Quote
Paley,

I hope you're not giving up on geocentricism.  You can't leave us hanging right after introducing the complex spin of your quintessence condensate ether crystal.

-Dan

Cogzie! I hope you've almost recovered from surgery. Where would this thread be without you or Mr. Murphy nagging me for my lack of progress? :D
 To answer your question: No, I haven't given up. Think of me as Columbo (with you guys playing the Jack Cassidy role, of course). It's not that I try to be slow and obsessed with detail; it's just my nature. But like the detective, I hope to uncover the truth eventually.
 By the way, can you answer my last question? Surely someone around here knows.....

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
cogzoid



Posts: 234
Joined: Sep. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 21 2005,12:37   

Paley,
Thanks for the concerns.  I'm up to 98% recovered.

But, unfortunately, I'm not very good with trivia, so I can't answer your question.

-Dan

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 22 2005,07:57   

Quote
Paley,
Thanks for the concerns.  I'm up to 98% recovered.

Good to hear. Hey Murphy, I haven't forgotten about you. What's your legal opinion on the upcoming Kansas trial? And if the Dover case does get appealed, how do you think the Supremes will rule (other than with their usual iron fist, of course). I think the Supreme Court is up for grabs myself...

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
Alan Fox



Posts: 1436
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 22 2005,08:11   

Mr The Ghost of ¨Paley assures us
Quote
No, I haven't given up.


And can we also expect your "gut to gamete" paper?

  
  1058 replies since Aug. 31 2005,16:31 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (36) < ... 5 6 7 8 9 [10] 11 12 13 14 15 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

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