Springer in the news ... wow!

[Jorge]

We (the scientific community) did take a look. Most of it was poorly disguised Creationism that has no place in a professional science journal.

Let me not mince any words: you are • Edited by a Moderator •!
By the way, didn't I BOOT you off this thread?
Oops, no, that was your clone. Carry on ...
.
.
.
Oh, I guess I have to prove my accusation that you are a• Edited by a Moderator •

The proof is simple: post the Proceedings of the Symposium and point
out your claim that, quote - " most are poorly disguised Creationism" - unquote.

If you can do that then I'll post a retraction. If you cannot then you are a• Edited by a Moderator •

The fact you guys lied to Springer and sold your Creation-fest as a Cornell sponsored conference is just one more reason you got booted out on your keisters.

The challenge has been issued. Defend yourself or stand as a• Edited by a Moderator •

Even today if you think any of your clown show has value you could resubmit individual papers to the relevant scientific journals, but you won't. Your bird-cage liner worthy work is only good to you for its propaganda value.

Many of us don't even try any more. The double standard unquestionably exists. One group can have some very good science, research and analysis in multiple scientific areas while another group can watch porn and report on the volume of 'ejecta' after each of a hundred sexual acts. One group gets published while the other group gets "booted out on its keisters". If you had a mere ounce of integrity in your body you would at least acknowledge this fact, lower your head in shame, and try to make things better. You lack that measly ounce.

Jorge

Moderated By: Littlejoe

Unsubstantiated accusations of lying are only permitted once and must be substantiated at the time of the accusation. You have failed on both counts despite repeated warnings. Have a nice vacation.

***If you wish to take issue with this notice DO NOT do so in this thread.***
Contact the forum moderator or an administrator in Private Message or email instead. If you feel you must publicly complain or whine, please take it to the Padded Room unless told otherwise.

[HMS_Beagle]

Let me not mince any words: you are• Edited by a Moderator •
By the way, didn't I BOOT you off this thread?
Oops, no, that was your clone. Carry on ...
.
Oh, I guess I have to prove my accusation that you are a• Edited by a Moderator •

The proof is simple: post the Proceedings of the Symposium and point
out your claim that, quote - " most are poorly disguised Creationism" - unquote.

If you can do that then I'll post a retraction. If you cannot then you are a• Edited by a Moderator •

The challenge has been issued. Defend yourself or stand as a• Edited by a Moderator •

Sorry Mr. Welsher but the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate someone is lying, not for anyone else to demonstrate they didn't.

Your post has been reported BTW. Maybe some day you'll learn not to run that big fat mouth of yours, but not today.

[rogue06]

Let me not mince any words: you are• Edited by a Moderator •
By the way, didn't I BOOT you off this thread?
Oops, no, that was your clone. Carry on ...
.
.
.
Oh, I guess I have to prove my accusation that you are a• Edited by a Moderator •

The proof is simple: post the Proceedings of the Symposium and point
out your claim that, quote - " most are poorly disguised Creationism" - unquote.

If you can do that then I'll post a retraction. If you cannot then you are a• Edited by a Moderator •

You don't substantiate an accusation by demanding that the accused provide evidence instead you provide the evidence.

[HMS_Beagle]

We (the scientific community) did take a look. Most of it was poorly disguised Creationism that has no place in a professional science journal. The fact you guys lied to Springer and sold your Creation-fest as a Cornell sponsored conference is just one more reason you got booted out on your keisters.

Even today if you think any of your clown show has value you could resubmit individual papers to the relevant scientific journals, but you won't. Your bird-cage liner worthy work is only good to you for its propaganda value.

If anyone wants to see just how big a Creationist clown circus this phony "Cornell" conference was, here is a link to the presentations.

Biological Information: New Perspectives

First thing to notice is the conference was run by Robert J. Marks II, Michael J. Behe, William A. Dembski, Bruce L. Gordon, and John C. Sanford. All are well known Intelligent Design Creationists though Behe and Dembski are OECs. Dembski at least had the good sense to leave the IDC movement last year, abandoning the sinking ship.

Other well known Creationists there were Jonathan "Moonie" Wells of the anti-science Creationist turd "Icons of Evolution", John Baumgardner of the Creationist RATE project fame, Granville Sewell and his silly "the 2nd law of thermo disproves evolution" spiel. Of course our own fake PhD "Clucky" the Welsher Fernandez was there too. A few more notables were the Discovery Institute's latest ID-Creationist talking heads Douglas Axe and Ann Gauger AKA Tweedle-dumb and Tweedle-dumber.

Almost every "paper" presented was of the form "this is so complex / complicated / improbable that evolution couldn't have done it!" Standard boilerplate ID-Creationism through and through.

There's a darn good reason not a single piece of this "science" has been submitted and published in any respectable science journal, and why Springer gave it the heave-ho when they found out the false pretenses under which this garbage had been presented.

[Jorge]

You don't substantiate an accusation by demanding that the accused provide evidence instead you provide the evidence.

You are a double-standard HYPOCRITE every bit as much as Beagle Boy!

Who made the first accusation, HYPOCRITE?

Here it is:

"Most of it was poorly disguised Creationism that has no place in a professional science journal."

That is an accusation. It is an accusation that I (we) were looking to insert
"poorly disguised Creationism" into "a professional science journal".

Where is your demand for that accusation to be substantiated, HYPOCRITE?

You are a HYPOCRITE, R06 (or whatever your real name is).
Not just that but a HYPOCRITE that often sides with spiritual enemies of God. Hmmmm ...

Jorge

[HMS_Beagle]

Who made the first accusation, HYPOCRITE?

You did Clucky. You were the first to run that big mouth and call someone a LIAR against board rules. You did it multiple times.

Here it is:

"Most of it was poorly disguised Creationism that has no place in a professional science journal."

That is an accusation. It is an accusation that I (we) were looking to insert
"poorly disguised Creationism" into "a professional science journal".

Where is your demand for that accusation to be substantiated, HYPOCRITE?

I just substantiated it right above Clucky although I didn't need to. Now retract your claim that I was a LIAR.

[Jorge]

If anyone wants to see just how big a Creationist clown circus this phony "Cornell" conference was, here is a link to the presentations.

Biological Information: New Perspectives

First thing to notice is the conference was run by Robert J. Marks II, Michael J. Behe, William A. Dembski, Bruce L. Gordon, and John C. Sanford. All are well known Intelligent Design Creationists though Behe and Dembski are OECs. Dembski at least had the good sense to leave the IDC movement last year, abandoning the sinking ship.

Other well known Creationists there were Jonathan "Moonie" Wells of the anti-science Creationist turd "Icons of Evolution", John Baumgardner of the Creationist RATE project fame, Granville Sewell and his silly "the 2nd law of thermo disproves evolution" spiel. Of course our own fake PhD "Clucky" the Welsher Fernandez was there too. A few more notables were the Discovery Institute's latest ID-Creationist talking heads Douglas Axe and Ann Gauger AKA Tweedle-dumb and Tweedle-dumber.

Almost every "paper" presented was of the form "this is so complex / complicated / improbable that evolution couldn't have done it!" Standard boilerplate ID-Creationism through and through.

There's a darn good reason not a single piece of this "science" has been submitted and published in any respectable science journal, and why Springer gave it the heave-ho when they found out the false pretenses under which this garbage had been presented.

Since I am most familiar with the papers that I co-authored, consider this one:

http://www.worldscientific.com/doi/p...814508728_0006

(My contribution were the first 10 pages of the paper; after that Montanez and Marks mostly took over. Sanford oversaw the entire paper and was there mostly for the genetic aspects.).

Go ahead, Beagle Boy - point to what in that paper even suggests that we are trying to insert "poorly disguised Creationism" into "a professional science journal".

BE SPECIFIC - I will not let you get away with general accusations pointing aimlessly.

Jorge

[Jorge]

You did Clucky. You were the first to run that big mouth and call someone a LIAR against board rules. You did it multiple times.



I just substantiated it right above Clucky although I didn't need to. Now retract your claim that I was a LIAR.

When Hell freezes over, Beagle Boy.

I've called you out as a• Edited by a Moderator • and I re-affirm that accusation because it is true.

Now shut up and provide the evidence for YOUR accusation.
If you can do that then I will happily retract my accusation.

We're waiting ..............................

Jorge

[HMS_Beagle]

Go ahead, Beagle Boy - point to what in that paper even suggests that we are trying to insert "poorly disguised Creationism" into "a professional science journal".

BE SPECIFIC - I will not let you get away with general accusations pointing aimlessly.

Jorge

From the Axe / Gauger paper the standard ID-Creationist argument "Evolution can't do it!"

"Can neo-Darwinian theory explain the origin of this network of enzymes that orchestrates metabolic complexity? Building on previous experimental and theoretical work, we argue here that it cannot."

from the Sewell paper, whining that ID-Creationists aren't taken seriously.

"But one would think that at least this would be considered an open question, and those who argue that it really is extremely improbable, and thus contrary to the basic principle underlying the second law of thermodynamics, would be given a measure of respect, and taken seriously by their colleagues, but we aren’t."

From the Macosko and Smelser paper, another ID-Creationist argument "Evolution can't do it!"

"In this paper, the hypothesis that the finely tuned optimization of the SCT originates in external intelligence is compared to the hypothesis that its fine tuning is due to the adaptive selection of earlier codes. It is concluded that, in the absence of metaphysical biases against this hypothesis, external intelligence better explains the origin of the SCT"

One more from YECs Sanford, Baumgardner, and Brewer still with the ID-Creationist argument "Evolution can't do it!"

" It appears very likely that most functional nucleotides in a large genome have fractional contributions to fitness much smaller than this. This means that, given our current understanding of how natural selection operates, we cannot explain the origin of the typical functional nucleotide."

You're the biggest clown of all Fraudnandez. Now retract your claim I was a LIAR.

[HMS_Beagle]

When Hell freezes over, Beagle Boy.

I've called you out as a• Edited by a Moderator •and I re-affirm that accusation because it is true.

Now shut up and provide the evidence for YOUR accusation.
If you can do that then I will happily retract my accusation.

We're waiting ..............................

Post by the big mouthed coward reported.

[Raphael]

You are a double-standard HYPOCRITE every bit as much as Beagle Boy!

Who made the first accusation, HYPOCRITE?

Here it is:

"Most of it was poorly disguised Creationism that has no place in a professional science journal."

That is an accusation. It is an accusation that I (we) were looking to insert
"poorly disguised Creationism" into "a professional science journal".

Where is your demand for that accusation to be substantiated, HYPOCRITE?

You are a HYPOCRITE, R06 (or whatever your real name is).
Not just that but a HYPOCRITE that often sides with spiritual enemies of God. Hmmmm ...

Jorge

No Jorge, that is an OPINION not an accusation. It is Beagle's OPINION that "Most of it was poorly disguised Creationism that has no place in a professional science journal."

You can't call a man a liar for expressing his opinion of the content.

[Jorge]

From the Axe / Gauger paper the standard ID-Creationist argument "Evolution can't do it!"



from the Sewell paper, whining that ID-Creationists aren't taken seriously.



From the Macosko and Smelser paper, another ID-Creationist argument "Evolution can't do it!"



One more from YECs Sanford, Baumgardner, and Brewer still with the ID-Creationist argument "Evolution can't do it!"



You're the biggest clown of all Fraudnandez. Now retract your claim I was a LIAR.

If you have deluded yourself into believing that the above demonstrates attempts to "insert "poorly disguised Creationism" into "a professional science journal"" then you must be drunk on your own urine.

I mean, let me just take one, the middle one that you show:

"But one would think that at least this would be considered an open question, and those who argue that it really is extremely improbable, and thus contrary to the basic principle underlying the second law of thermodynamics, would be given a measure of respect, and taken seriously by their colleagues, but we aren’t."

All this is saying is that it is reasonable to consider this an "open question" ... which IT IS.

Listen, moron, just because YOU don't wish to accept the reasonableness of a position does NOT make it attempts to "insert "poorly disguised Creationism" into "a professional science journal"". Yes, I know that you would like to believe it does, but it doesn't - not even close.

Then you posted this that we had in our paper: "It appears very likely that most functional nucleotides in a large genome have fractional contributions to fitness much smaller than this. This means that, given our current understanding of how natural selection operates, we cannot explain the origin of the typical functional nucleotide."

to which all you said was "You're the biggest clown of all ..."
Yeah, that was a very "scientific" opinion from you, Dumbo.

Sorry, but other than in your deluded world that kind of "evidence" doesn't carry ANY weight.

You may continue waiting for Hell to freeze over, Beagle Boy --• Edited by a Moderator •

Jorge

[Jorge]

No Jorge, that is an OPINION not an accusation. It is Beagle's OPINION that "Most of it was poorly disguised Creationism that has no place in a professional science journal."

You can't call a man a liar for expressing his opinion of the content.

A big BS to that.

Okay, then it's ALL "opinions" and no one is accountable for anything - you okay with that?
No, of course you won't be "okay" with that. You're also a double-standard hypocrite.

Go back to doing whatever you were, Raphael.

Jorge

[HMS_Beagle]

(snip the usual chicken poo and clucking)

You may continue waiting for Hell to freeze over, Beagle Boy --• Edited by a Moderator •

Post by the big mouthed coward reported.

[TheLurch]

I have to say, i've only ever seen the argument that evolution isn't compatible with the 2nd law of thermodynamics from creationists. I've never seen any serious scientist take issue with this.