Subduction Zone
Regular Member
Nope, you aren't, and no it doesn't.Nah, I'm good. Everything comes from something.
Perhaps you should revisit physics. Yours appears to be at least 50 years out of date.
Upvote
0
Nope, you aren't, and no it doesn't.Nah, I'm good. Everything comes from something.
Perhaps he doesn't like it because its incorrect?
Peer review is not a "popularity contest for ideas" - it's a systematic analysis of information to determine whether it is valid or not.
It's far from flawless, but it's also just part of a wide process.
Nope, you aren't, and no it doesn't.
Perhaps you should revisit physics. Yours appears to be at least 50 years out of date.
The rules contradict your description - the idea that works best is not necessarily the most popular, so it's not a popularity contest.You "reasons" simply described the contest rules.
All contests have a custom set of rules.
The rules contradict your description - the idea that works best is not necessarily the most popular, so it's not a popularity contest.
Whatevs.Nope, you aren't, and no it doesn't.
Perhaps you should revisit physics. Yours appears to be at least 50 years out of date.
I find it amazing that people seem to lose sleep at night over whether or not I personally believe in a First Cause.Well, that wasn't much of an explanation.
What part of physics allows for the the creation of the cosmos?
Freud literally made the entire field of psychology mainstream.I don't know that he ever was popular.
OK. I'll wait while you describe the system that works without individual bias
or group bias.
By the way, they are working on a system that does not use people
to evaluate papers for publication.
Please cite this aspect of your claim that ranks ideas based on "da best ones".
And show how "best" is objectively determined.
Right. Forum posts are not the same as dissertations.
I don't always cite my sources here. But I am willing to
when asked.
Well, that wasn't much of an explanation.
What part of physics allows for the the creation of the cosmos?
Whatevs.
I'm not sure quite what you're asking in that first sentence (maybe The Scientific Method will help), but ideas are generally ranked on some version of abductive criteria for reasoning to the best explanation - testability, fruitfulness (predictive success), scope (diversity of explanatory power, unifying power), simplicity (parsimony), and conservatism (consistency with existing knowledge).Please cite this aspect of your claim that ranks ideas based on "da best ones".
And show how "best" is objectively determined.
I'm quite interested in learning, and do it all the time.What are you doing here if you are not interested in learning?
Perhaps he doesn't like it because its incorrect?
Peer review is not a "popularity contest for ideas" - it's a systematic analysis of information to determine whether it is valid or not.
It's far from flawless, but it's also just part of a wide process.
Been away for a while, come back and see the same 'arguments' against evolution.
And it is always... ALWAYS... 'arguments' against evolution.
NEVER arguments FOR creation/ID.
Analogies to human activity, bible verses, 'problems' with evolution - none of these, not one of them, is evidence FOR creation or ID.
It is almost as if creationists have admitted to themselves, subconsciously, that they cannot actually offer any positive supporting evidence FOR their mere beliefs, and are content to simply attack 'the other.' This is true, whether the creationist is a one-line snark master, or a verbose citation and quote bombing autodidact.
Are you bragging or complaining?Almost a month later, and my conclusion here is even more supported.