Side comments on Bartlett: Measuring Active Information

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.


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


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.


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

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


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