Side comments on Bartlett: Measuring Active Information

No, only authorities who agree with Eddie.

2 Likes

Once again we see Eddie’s fantasy of this caste separation between the Brahmin theorists and the lowly technical people.

Both of them do evolutionary biology, too. Their hands are soooo dirty!

1 Like

And would you have sufficient training in evolutionary biology (theoretical or empirical) to make that assessment, dear Eddie?

Allow me. Ahem, … BWAHAHA!

1 Like

He is. He still knee-jerk supports any ID-Creationist publications and attacks anyone who criticizes IDC. :slightly_smiling_face:

1 Like

The only other Fellow is Eric Holloway. How can evolutionary theory ever survive the scientific onslaught from those two IDC heavyweights? :astonished:

3 Likes

So what? You’re pseudonymous, so your claim to be acquainted with him is meaningless.

Do you even think before you write this stuff?

1 Like

Turns out his qualifications in evolutionary biology are nonexistent. Go figure. I’m sure the impression Eddie left that he had “advanced training” in it was inadvertent.

3 Likes

Golly. Then why would Eddie so hypocritically demand that Roy state his qualifications?

I’m just as sure that Eddie can explain any ambiguities in Bartlett’s writing, given his vast training in mathematics and evolutionary theory.

Since this is Eddie, any empirical experience in evolutionary biology must be irrelevant. :laughing:

1 Like

What happened to “I’m a firm believer in the principle that intelligent argument is more important than formal credentials”? Please deal with the science. I’m going to ask that your credentialist distraction be separated.

4 Likes

I read Bartlett’s paper - that must not be part of the literature.

4 Likes

Perhaps if you and your colleagues in creationism advocacy* had managed over the last 32 years to show me that you weren’t without exception ignorant dishonest hypocrites, my attitude might be different.

If I approach each creationist publication with the expectation that it will be as full of errors, fallacies and falsehoods as the thousands I have already read, you only have yourselves to blame.

*I.e. the leaders and promoters, not the followers.

4 Likes

Eddie has flounced, or at least that’s what he claims:

So there isn’t a lot of point in addressing him.

3 Likes

I don’t see any basis for that, since Eddie is hiding behind a pseudonym.

1 Like

I’ve never published a work of creationism advocacy, and the ID people I typically read haven’t either, but if I ever encounter anyone who does publish such work, I’ll be sure to pass along your message. :slight_smile:

I still hold to that. But your comments on Bartlett weren’t intelligent arguments, just nay-saying and an accusation that he didn’t understand his material. Bye.

Eddie’s support of Bartlett seems to be the only positive for that paper. Let it ride.

If that was true, you’d have asked for arguments, not academic qualifications. But you didn’t ask for arguments, so it’s not true.

1 Like

This topic was automatically closed 3 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.

We have a newer comments thread for the discussion of Bartlett’s paper here: Comments on Jonathan Bartlett's Office Hours.
Please direct all comments there.

1 Like