Caught red-shifted

[Jerry Smith]

Now that I have your explanation, I still don't see why you think its funny.

When you are reporting data that condradicts earlier findings that supported an hypothesis, I believe it is fairly common practice to at least include a presentation of the data in a form that is most favorable to the hypothesis you have falsified.

So what's the joke, if you don't mind me asking?

 

[LiveFreeOrDie]

Originally posted by npetreley
He's actually leaving out an important bit of information here. He's saying that the unidentified objects [31], if they fall in the troughs are enough -- but that isn't strictly true. What he should be saying is that the currently unidentified objects -- if they ALL belong in the plot and lie in the troughs.

So he's suggesting that if you take the 31 sources, which are unidentified, and assume they ALL belong in the plot (as opposed to 427/804 of the original sources which WERE identified), and also assume that NONE of the 31 fall into the peaks but ALL of the fall into the troughs, which means they not only ALL belong in the plot but ALL contradict the periodicity...and if you aren't laughing your keister off by now, then that explains how you can fall for evolution!

Tell you what, Nick: I dare you, no -- I triple dog dare you to send your criticism to the NASA answer man and tell us what he thinks.

 

[euphoric]

Originally posted by Jerry Smith
So what's the joke, if you don't mind me asking?

I seriously doubt that he even knows what the joke is.  He seems to scattershoot vitriolic comments in the hopes that people will forget how badly he gets thrashed in the actual debates.

After watching him post for a while, Nick seems to be an proponent of anti-intellectualism.  A rejection of the notion of expertise seems to underly most of his comments.  This concept is well represented by this little gem:

Originally posted by npetreley
Really, now -- fess up -- was this an april fools issue of ASP, or is this really what passes for science these days?

 

 It's the same concept that allows the loud, drunk construction worker at the end of the bar to honestly believe that he knows more about market economics than Alan Greenspan.  This philosophy allows Nick to operate under the dilusion that his opinions on matters of science are just as valid as a professional scientist's.  Come to think of it, it's a pretty prevalent phenomenon in YECs as a whole.  Nick is just the comically extreme example of it.  Sort of like this board's version of Jack Chick .

-brett

 

[Morat]

  It appears, Nick, that none of us "get the joke" you're so keeled over by, instead seeing a relatively common (and honest) assesment of the potential (and specifically negative) impact of the 31 unidentified points.

   You'll just have to dumb it down for us until we understand.

   I predict we won't, because your "joke" isn't for us. It's for the people reading it, who don't bother to parse the paper to sort out what he's saying. My personal guess is that you can't refute the paper, but think if you talk loud enough about how stupid it is, people will believe you.

   Given your credibility on these boards, I can only applaud your optimism.