news aggregator

An article in The Florida Current reports that the Florida legislature has come to an agreement to give career service state employees a raise — the first in almost seven years. Career service workers earning more than $40K a year would see a $1K increase, and those earning less than that would get a $1.4K [...]

Click here to listen. On this episode of ID the Future, Casey Luskin examines the double standard advocated by the evolution lobby in public schools. "Either a viewpoint is religious and unconstitutional to advocate as correct or critique as...

Click here to listen. Over the next several weeks, ID the Future will be presenting an audio adaptation of Nickell John Romjue's fascinating book, I, Charles Darwin. In today's episode, Darwin explores what we've learned about the fossil record...

The article highlights a recent paper in Nature reporting on the sequencing of the genome of the coelacanth, a famous fish often called a "living fossil." Casey Luskin http://www.discovery.org/p/188

Don't miss Discovery Institute Senior Fellow Stephen C. Meyer on the Michael Medved show today. Bruce Chapman http://www.discovery.org/p/7

In the Origin of Species, Charles Darwin documented a fascinating and troubling discovery. Evolution News & Views

"No human contrivance operates with either the degree of complexity, the precision, or the efficiency of living cells." Casey Luskin http://www.discovery.org/p/188

The evolutionary story is being imposed forcibly on the data. This is a pattern we've observed before. Evolution News & Views

The other day I commented that in the face of tragedy, Darwinism and its Janus face, scientific materialism, rob us of the ability to say anything truly meaningful. David Klinghoffer http://www.discovery.org/p/209

It's been Exhibit A -- literally, offered as evidence in a famous court case -- for critics of ID who argue that our genome can't be a product of design. Casey Luskin http://www.discovery.org/p/188

Angst-ridden columnists may find the language in the Louisiana Science Education Act confusing, but school administrators and teachers don't. Joshua Youngkin http://www.discovery.org/p/501

That lone bright dot in the sea of dark is neither electric light nor rocket exhaust. Joshua Youngkin http://www.discovery.org/p/501

From Darwinian evolution to climate change, science has become a major flashpoint in the culture war. Evolution News & Views

Post by NoName
Quote (GaryGaulin @ April 26 2013,05:49)And FYI our financial situation that has us back to not being able to afford paying bills is causing my wife to pressure me to take serious (possibly legal) action against ones who have been funding attacks against my work while barring me from funding, or at least get completely out of this forum and stop work on the theory. Either way, your protest is a science stopper that I cannot afford, and expecting more from me is scientifically and socially irresponsible.
Paranoid schizophrenic much, Gary?

There's a much simpler, and far more likely to be true, explanation for your situation:
You're an ignorant loser who's wasted his entire life pursuing a chimera.
Note well that this is a description, not the ad hominem logical fallacy with which you have recently become obsessed.

How does it feel to have wasted your whole life?
How does it feel to have been called on it on virtually every site where you have expressed your effluent?

If you had the programming skills you pretend to, you could find work.
If you had the modeling skills you pretend to, you could find work.
Tragically, there is little to no work for obsessive-compulsives with dishonesty issues, logorrhea combined with a serious case of incoherence, and a total lack of self-awareness.

I think it would be appropriate, to say nothing of hysterically funny, were we to set up a foundation to collect your 'greatest hits' as a memorial to the awesome power of human stupidity unleashed.

But trust me on this, if nothing else.  No one at all takes you or your silly "theory" seriously enough to contribute even a nickel to suppressing it.  There's nothing there to suppress, which everyone has been telling you for free [modulo the cost to you of an internet connection].

No one takes your or your awesome lack of ability seriously enough to contribute even a penny to prevent you from acquiring funding.  Your awesome skills in that regard, and that regard only, have been as close to demonstrating even minimal competence that you have displayed.

Post by timothya
KF posts forty listed points, each of which is a matter of debate, and then prevents anyone from commenting on them.

That must be how Right Reasoning works.

Post by Arctodus23
Quote (Woodbine @ April 25 2013,14:14)Someone kick Nick Matzke in the balls to deter him from posting over there.

People can't resist touching the poop.
<s>Kill Nick Matzke, he's been violating the rules of the evilutionist community.</s>

Post by Jim_Wynne
Quote (GaryGaulin @ April 26 2013,05:49)You must first answer (or at least address) the contentions made by this theory, otherwise your prejudices led to rationalizing problems which only exist in your own mind, not reality.

And FYI our financial situation that has us back to not being able to afford paying bills is causing my wife to pressure me to take serious (possibly legal) action against ones who have been funding attacks against my work while barring me from funding, or at least get completely out of this forum and stop work on the theory. Either way, your protest is a science stopper that I cannot afford, and expecting more from me is scientifically and socially irresponsible.
Quote You must first answer (or at least address) the contentions made by this theory, otherwise your prejudices led to rationalizing problems which only exist in your own mind, not reality.
This is exactly wrong, and a big reason it's so easy to see that you not only don't understand science, you're incapable of the logical thought processes that are necessary to *do* science.  *You* have to support *your own* contentions, which you have not come close to doing in a way that remotely resembles rationality.

This famous cartoon, which I might have posted earlier in the thread, illustrates your problem perfectly:
 


Quote And FYI our financial situation that has us back to not being able to afford paying bills is causing my wife to pressure me to take serious (possibly legal) action against ones who have been funding attacks against my work while barring me from funding, or at least get completely out of this forum and stop work on the theory. Either way, your protest is a science stopper that I cannot afford, and expecting more from me is scientifically and socially irresponsible.
Every time it looks like you couldn't possibly dig your hole any deeper you manage to do it.  You now have fantasies about some nefarious forces *funding* attacks against your "theory."  Wow.

Just for fun, though, why not tell us exactly what you would do with your "theory" if you had all of the funding you think you need.  Tell us about your research plan (you do have one, right?) and give us a general overview of the necessary facilities, personnel and equipment you'll need.  Then tell us about the test methods you've developed.  You do realize, I hope, that if you have nothing more than 40 pages of gibberish and a little VB program, it's a little unreasonable to expect anyone to give you money.  You also must realize that if you've feverishly struggled for years and the yield is only 40 pages of gibberish and a poorly-structured VB program, there is no reason that anyone should think that you're capable of doing the actual hard work of science.

Post by GaryGaulin
Quote (Nomad @ April 25 2013,23:21)   Quote (GaryGaulin @ April 25 2013,23:03)         Quote (Jim_Wynne @ April 25 2013,15:32)Gary might find this useful:


Everyone in this forum is OK with this?

A "theory" is a fact with evidence behind it that has been repeatedly confirmed and a "fact" is essentially the same thing but may be modified or even discarded tomorrow?
I'm mostly okay with it, but would have put emphasis on phrasing things differently.  Fact is closer to "single data point".  If my thermometer says it's 62 degrees outside, that's a fact.  The color temperature of a CFL bulb I just installed in a hall light?  That's a fact.

The explanation behind the climate processes that resulted in the temperature being 62 degrees?  That trends towards theory.  The concept of black body radiation that is used to come up with the measurement of the color temperature comes from a larger body of knowledge explaining how light works.  That again is the realm of theory.
I have to consider it another of the usual quote-mined redefinitions for hypothesis, theory and fact which were invented to stop the Theory of Intelligent Design, even though such redefinitions would stop all new theories from ever being written.

Control freaks love definitions that cripple scientific progress, and their submissive flock of sheeple love to follow them, which is why none in this forum said anything about it.

  Quote (Nomad @ April 25 2013,23:21)
Read it again, you missed a rather important distinction.  Theory is EXPLANATION, it's the HOW.  A fact is a correct observation.
The only question I have is whether Jim specially made that in order to demonstrate how easy it is to misled a forum like this one.

Can you show me where it says "it's the HOW" a phenomenon works? Where do you see that in their definition for what a theory is? Or did you ignore the rather glaring errors and make inferences from the word "explanation" in order to rationalize it as a viable definition?

  Quote (Nomad @ April 25 2013,23:21)
As to the point at hand, I'd like to see HOW an explanation of various words used in the field of science can be perceived as an insult used in an ad hominem.  You think "you're part of the problem" stated towards people that abuse scientific terms is an insult?

I don't think you want to understand this, but I'll take a stab at it.  If I say "your understanding of scientific terms is wrong because you're an idiot", that's an ad hominem.  Saying that you're an idiot because you refuse to understand basic terms and persist in using the wrong terms after being corrected isn't.  It may be accurate to call it an insult, but the fact remains that you've been demonstrated to be incorrect.

And I'll say it again, the fact that you're avoiding discussing the way in which you're wrong by focusing on a dictionary definition and stressing the part about avoiding addressing the points in contention is amazing.  You owe at least a half a dozen people here new irony meters.

You must first answer (or at least address) the contentions made by this theory, otherwise your prejudices led to rationalizing problems which only exist in your own mind, not reality.

And FYI our financial situation that has us back to not being able to afford paying bills is causing my wife to pressure me to take serious (possibly legal) action against ones who have been funding attacks against my work while barring me from funding, or at least get completely out of this forum and stop work on the theory. Either way, your protest is a science stopper that I cannot afford, and expecting more from me is scientifically and socially irresponsible.