16
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 12:
Line 12: + + + + + + + +
Conservapedia talk:Lenski dialog (view source)
Revision as of 00:09, June 16, 2008
, 00:09, June 16, 2008→Recap
:::: As I said, TomMoore, you apparently don't support "public scrutiny" of the data. Your own expertise is obviously irrelevant.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:17, 15 June 2008 (EDT)
:::: As I said, TomMoore, you apparently don't support "public scrutiny" of the data. Your own expertise is obviously irrelevant.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:17, 15 June 2008 (EDT)
::::: '''Schlafly Scrutiny, n.'''. The demand to release all relevant and irrelevant data pertaining, or not pertaining to, a particular scientific study, to be analyzed by no one in particular. Schlafly Scrutiny is dissimilar to scientific scrutiny and public scrutiny in that it requires no field knowledge, no verification objectives, no scientific effort, and is unlike any scientific verification process to have ever existed in history. Schlafly Scrutiny usually hampers research and waste tax dollars in making a tremendous amount of irrelevant information available.
::::: Andy, I will not join in your support in the wasting of the tax dollars of mine and others to provide irrelevant information which you will then proceed to not use. I do not at all support Schlafly Scrutiny, which is easily identified by any three-year-old to differ from public scrutiny or scientific scrutiny.
::::: You can either participate with other scientists in public scrutiny by identifying rational weaknesses in Lenski's work and doing verification experiments, or you can continue to ignore public scrutiny and demand that Schlafly Scrutiny be done. What will it be?
::::: [[User:Carafe|Carafe]] 20:09, 15 June 2008 (EDT)
== Request of Examination of raw data is reasonable given the history of evolutionist fraud ==
== Request of Examination of raw data is reasonable given the history of evolutionist fraud ==