Tuesday, June 27, 2006

Perhaps Not such a Good Idea

I have found trying to run a blog is very time-consuming, and there are other calls on my time. I think it has been demonstrated that if enough people are unable to self-moderate, the nuggets of interest are swamped by the rubbish. Sadly I agree with Mark Frank's assessment. I had hoped more thread topics would be proposed nothing has been suggested by anyone for a while.

My personal view is that, considering DaveScot's generally perceived blog persona, I have to admit that he hasn't been (on this site) quite the unmitigated disaster predicted. John Davison, on the other hand has conformed perfectly to predictions, which is a shame, but his choice.

I am happy to let things run for a while, but would like to hear from anyone who has a suggestion for a thread topic. Post here or in the suggestions thread

23 comments:

Rich Hughes said...

How about an "ID: show me the research" thread?

Alan Fox said...

OK Rich, put some meat on the bones and I'll paste it.

JohnADavison said...

Of course I have. I have no respect for you or your cronies from Psnda's Thumb. What did you expect kudos? What do you want another thread for? No one has even attempted to answer my four challenges yet. You know why? I do. It is because they can't, because everything you and your Darwimpian cronies stand for is a myth, an illusion and a hoax. That's why. You might as well close down this flame pit while you are behind as it isn't going anywhere.

It is hard to believe isn't it?

I love it so!

Wonderpants said...

" "How about an "ID: show me the research" thread? "


Alan Fox said...
OK Rich, put some meat on the bones and I'll paste it. "

Why is there no ID research, even on Dembski's blog?
Why does ID consist solely of an opinion that some parts of human biology are designed?
How would IDers actually prove that some parts of human biology are in fact designed?

Alan Fox said...

Expand a bit on the theme, Wonderpants and I'll start a thread if you like.

Wonderpants said...

"My personal view is that, considering DaveScot's generally perceived blog persona, I have to admit that he hasn't been (on this site) quite the unmitigated disaster predicted. "

At a guess, it's because he can't duck or delete awkward subjects. I note from skimming through the threads though that he's been rather selective as to which ones he posts in, namely the ones that don't pose awkward ID questions. ;-)

Alan Fox said...

Well, we can't torture a confession out of him. As Lenny points out frequently, an absence of an answer is in itself an answer. What about a thread from you, entitled " My awkard questions for DaveScot"?

blipey said...

I'm not sure how much meat can be put on the bones of a non-existent project, but here's my thought:

I would really like to hear about actual research projects that can be / are being done. Without knowing of any that are running currently, I'm not sure if it would be a good thread to start, but maybe you could ask for ideas.

It could be a thread dedicated to lab experiments. If X is designed, we will find Y. Here's how we find Y in the lab. Then we watch for the landslide of X and Y that get suggested and, of course, the methods that actually find these things.

Why would they start posting it now, though, after years of keeping it secret?

secondclass said...

JAD: I have no respect for you or your cronies from Psnda's Thumb.

Which raises the obvious question of why you hang around in forums like this. Why not submit your work to a technical journal where real scientists will read it?

Alan Fox said...

Well, unless and until Wonderpants or Blipey want to expand on it, I have framed a thread along the line suggested.

jujuquisp said...

I think a good thread would be "Place A Vote For or Against the Banning of Professor Emeritus John Davison".

JohnADavison said...

I invade the ephemeral meaningless world of cyberdom for amusement on the outside chance that I might find a rational mind once in a while, one like johndarius for example. Mostly I encounter mentally impaired ideologues with IQs in the room temperature range or hostile, rabid, certifiably deranged schizophrenic sociopaths like Spravid Dinger. This particular blog seems to be blessed with both varieties.

Naturally -

I love it so!

Wonderpants said...

I'll try and think of something tomorrow.

Been watching the footie tonight.

Props to France for winning aghainst Spain, Alan.

Alan Fox said...

Ah, the World Cup. Something else Mrs Fox and I disagree on. Yes there would have been a few glum faces at work tomorrow. Now if only France can beat Brazil, and England beat Portugal.

secondclass said...

JAD, you didn't answer my second question: Why not submit your work to a technical journal where real scientists will read it?

jujuquisp said...

Why would real scientists want to read the nonsensical ramblings of a pseudoscientist?

haliaeetus said...

Give me a shout if you need some "help."

JohnADavison said...

Naturally -

I love it so!

Jeannot said...

But JAD won't publish in a scientific journal any longer. According to his second post, we can assume that he visits Nature's website "for amusement on the outside chance that [he] might find a rational mind once in a while, one like a [creationist] for example. Mostly [he] encounters mentally impaired [evolutionary biologists] "

JohnADavison said...

I can't think of a single great scientist who wouldn't describe himself as a creationist, not one. Can anyone?

I love it so!

Biogeer said...

Democritus, Sagan, Darwin, Edison, Feynman, Curie, just to name a handful.

Of course, they never managed to publish in Rivista... [snicker]

JohnADavison said...

Feynman once described scientific discovery as a religious experience. I agree entirely as I have had the same experience. That anyone could describe Darwin as a scientist is unthinkable. I didn't know that about Curie and tend not to accept it without some documentation.

I love it so!

Biogeer said...

What a sad little weasel you are. Feynman was an avowed atheist. Curie was raised Catholic but became an atheist on the death of her mother. Darwin was 100 times the scientist you are.

Creationism is all but dead among true scientists; critical inquiry is poison to that superstitious twaddle.