Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   What exactly is ID?
Briterican
Member (Idle past 3949 days)
Posts: 340
Joined: 05-29-2008


Message 271 of 1273 (540213)
12-22-2009 5:59 PM
Reply to: Message 267 by traderdrew
12-22-2009 5:10 PM


A rare piece of scripture that is true!
traderdew writes:
The bible says God is hidden. So the evidence seems to match up with this piece of scripture.
...
Fantastic.
traderdrew writes:
Your dogma insists your way is the way or the highway.
Dogma, by definition is set forth in an authoritative manner. One definition of authoritative is " Of acknowledged accuracy or excellence; highly reliable". The "way" you are referring to is the scientific method, peer-review, supporting evidence, etc. In that respect, yes, it's our "way" or the highway. How else could it be? Shall we discuss the Stork Theory of Reproduction?
Edited by Briterican, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 267 by traderdrew, posted 12-22-2009 5:10 PM traderdrew has not replied

Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2492 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 272 of 1273 (540214)
12-22-2009 6:03 PM
Reply to: Message 267 by traderdrew
12-22-2009 5:10 PM


Re: Flaws of ID
The bible says God is hidden. So the evidence seems to match up with this piece of scripture.
So you are claiming that having NO evidence to support the existence of the Jew Wizard is proof that his exists.
You HONESTLY can present that argument with a straight face?
Yes, you are dogmatic but in a different way. Your dogma insists your way is the way or the highway.
No. Our dogma insists that "reality is real and non-reality is not".
The problem you are having is that your claims not only reject reality, but rely on non-reality as a substitute.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 267 by traderdrew, posted 12-22-2009 5:10 PM traderdrew has not replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 273 of 1273 (540217)
12-22-2009 6:33 PM
Reply to: Message 237 by Smooth Operator
12-22-2009 9:18 AM


Re: Flaws of ID
Fine. Start explaining. How do they only make sense in light of evolution.
As I have pointed out, this is off-topic. You may either look up my posts on this subject, or start a new thread.
P.S: did your mother never teach you the "magic word"?
I do need a definition from everyone because everyone has a different definition.
No.
A population is small if it is small? Wow, Einstein, did you graduate at the University of Tautology?
You asked: and I really don't see how to break the concept "small" down into more primitive concepts.
Did you graduate at the University Of Not Knowing What Small Means?
Okay, now tell me, why do you think this will have any effect of stoping the genetic meltdown at any future point in time when we know that all individuals are mutants?
We know that purifying selection operates more efficiently on large populations.
Evolution is an algorithm. It does not produce any CSI. It only transmits it. Let me show you a mathematical proof for that, right out of NFL.
First we have a CSI j, and a detrministic natural law denoted by f. Natural laws are described as functions. Simply because they act on a certain variable, and than give the same result every time.
Just like 2X + 10 = 20. X will always be 5. In the same way, when you put water under 0C, you will always get ice.
So now, you are claiming that this natural law "f", brought about CSI "j", without intelligent cause. That means that there was some element "i" in the domain of "f", that was acted upon by "f" and it brought upon "j".
This is represented by the equation => "f(i) = j"
This actually does not create new information, since "i" will always produce "j" when acted upon by "f". This simply means that the natural law has shifted the same amount of information from "i" to "j". The problem of where did the CSI come from is not resolved by this. Simply because we have to ask where did CSI in "i" come from? Because that is the same CSI as in "j". It just got shifted around by "f" acting upon it.
Now we have this equation: "I(A&B) = I(A) + I(B|A)", let's call it "*". It explains that information in an event A and B equal information in the event A together with information B given that A is certain. Which basicly means that if A happens, B is sure to happen. Therefore, if we see that A happened, that means B happened too.
Let us now use this equation in our example. Since we already know that "i" fully determines "j", with respect to "f", that means that "I(j|i) = 0". This means that if know all the information in "i", we will also know all the information in "j", when "f" acts upon "i". Which means that if "i" happens, "j" also happens, and whatever we learn from "i" we also learn from "j". And this means that we can learn nothing more from "j" than from "i". Meaning, information gained is equal to zero.
Which means that CSI that was generated is not created by a natural law, it was simply shifted from some other place. All natural laws act like this. Therefore natural laws are precluded from creating CSI. They can only shift them around.
This seems rather muddled.
Suppose, for example, I have a data set for a case of the Traveling Salesman Problem. I apply some off-the-shelf optimization algorithm such as good old random search, let us say of order 1000. On average, I get out some solution in the top 1/1000th of possible solutions.
Have I gained any "information", according to your criteria?
If you answer "yes", then clearly your argument is bogus.
But if you answer "no", then it appears that algorithms can solve optimization problems without increasing "information", and your argument does not relate to the question of whether evolution can do what it is claimed to do. It would relate only to the irrelevant question of whether evolution can do something which is unnecessary to the solution of optimization problems.
Well we do have that. It's called the Explanatory Filter. And we also have a reliable mark of intelligence which is CSI, which can not be produced by an evolutionary algorithm.
If unsupported assertion was equivalent to evidence, you guys would be home and dry. Creationists are good at unsupported assertion.
Than how do you explain this.
As a perfect illustration of the theory of evolution, which predicts less purifying selection for smaller populations.
Consider the first article. They attempted to induce genetic meltdown by repeatedly artificially forcing populations through bottlenecks. When the bottleneck was of size 300 or greater, this did not produce genetic meltdown.
The second paper, again (using body size as a proxy for low Ne) finds "less efficient purifying selection" associated with smaller populations.
And the third paper? "The risk of extinction by mutation accumulation can be comparable to that by environmental stochasticity for an isolated population smaller than a few thousand individuals"
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 237 by Smooth Operator, posted 12-22-2009 9:18 AM Smooth Operator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 293 by Smooth Operator, posted 12-23-2009 11:16 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Iblis
Member (Idle past 3895 days)
Posts: 663
Joined: 11-17-2005


(1)
Message 274 of 1273 (540222)
12-22-2009 6:46 PM


Science vs Ideology
There's a fundamental difference between evolutionary theory and creationism, which is that the theory of evolution, and the modern evolutionary synthesis of which it is a key component, are science.
To comprehend this difference properly, it is necessary to understand what science is and does, and what it is not and does not do. Science never proves anything, it never even tries to prove anything. The idea of ultimate truth is beyond its scope, it simply serves to provide the closest approximation to the observed facts that general theories are capable of being. One may see scientists and/or science teachers occasionally "prove" something in a debate, which is to say, win the debate by having better evidence and more convincing explanations. But this is just cake; while doing science, they never seek to prove their hypothesis.
Quite the contrary, all their efforts are, and must be, to disprove their hypothesis. This is the only way science can advance. The hypothesis makes a prediction: if lighter and heavier objects fall at the same speed, then when I drop this feather and this anvil they should hit at the same time. *drops things* Wow, they don't! What's wrong with my hypothesis? I must change it, to something that I haven't yet disproven. (Lighter and heavier objects fall at the same speed in a vacuum, in case you missed that class.)
Creationism absolutely cannot follow this method. To do so, would be to work to disprove the Bible. This sort of open honest method is forbidden by priestcraft and slave morality. Setting up a theory, say that God drowned everyone except 8 people and several pairs of critters, is fine. Proposing that if that theory were true, then the geological record would show a huge layer without stratification, with only a few thousand layers of stratification on top of it, is not fine. Looking at the record and recognizing that the theory is simply false, must be abandoned, is absolutely forbidden.
So in its attempts to resemble science, creationism has no choice other than to attempt to disprove vast swathes of overwhelmingly-confirmed science. It cannot do this by experimentation though, as it does not have the intellectual capacity or resources and anyway, doing so would only make its case worse and worse. So it mimes the process by simply proposing pseudo-theories which serve to "plausibly" disprove much of the evidence science has built its theories out of, by not requiring those components for its own case and by offering intangible solutions for various "gap" issues like This-or-that Anomaly and These-or-those Bacterial Wonders.
"Intelligent Design" is a perfect example of such a pseudo-theory. It makes no falsifiable predictions, proposes no experiments, explains no mechanisms, and tells us nothing about the actual world that we did not know, and many things we know to be false. Its "science" consists entirely of trying to disprove or discredit real theories, often in the most transparent way. The Discovery people love to name-drop Crick for his ideas about panspermia. What they fail to point out is, panspermia doesn't actually help their theory at all, all it does is open up range for experimentation about one tiny variable detail of the prevailing theory. To be clear about this: animate crud falling from the sky, does not support design by a designer, at all (though throwing the word "alien" around with a straight face helps them blur this distinction for the gullible.) All it does is provide an alternative to the not-particularly-critical idea of animate crud bubbling up from the ocean. It's still prebiotic complex chemicals, no matter where it forms!
It isn't science, it isn't faith, it's simple idolatry, the worship of some traditional interpretation of some poetry as being "literally true" in a very limited and disrespectful way.

Replies to this message:
 Message 275 by traderdrew, posted 12-22-2009 11:44 PM Iblis has replied

traderdrew
Member (Idle past 5154 days)
Posts: 379
From: Palm Beach, Florida
Joined: 04-27-2009


Message 275 of 1273 (540248)
12-22-2009 11:44 PM
Reply to: Message 274 by Iblis
12-22-2009 6:46 PM


Re: Science vs Ideology
The book "Signature in the Cell" lists twelve intelligent design predictions! And yes, I see many of them are falsifiable. I choose not to post them but they are available to the person who wishes to visit their local bookstore.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 274 by Iblis, posted 12-22-2009 6:46 PM Iblis has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 276 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-22-2009 11:48 PM traderdrew has replied
 Message 279 by Iblis, posted 12-23-2009 12:17 AM traderdrew has not replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 276 of 1273 (540249)
12-22-2009 11:48 PM
Reply to: Message 275 by traderdrew
12-22-2009 11:44 PM


ID Hides
The book "Signature in the Cell" lists twelve intelligent design predictions! And yes, I see many of them are falsifiable. I choose not to post them ...
I wonder why.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 275 by traderdrew, posted 12-22-2009 11:44 PM traderdrew has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 278 by traderdrew, posted 12-23-2009 12:16 AM Dr Adequate has replied

traderdrew
Member (Idle past 5154 days)
Posts: 379
From: Palm Beach, Florida
Joined: 04-27-2009


Message 277 of 1273 (540252)
12-23-2009 12:09 AM
Reply to: Message 269 by Dr Adequate
12-22-2009 5:31 PM


Re: Flaws of ID
The period during which each species underwent modification, though long as measured by years, was probably short in comparison with that during which it remained without undergoing any change. --- Charles Darwin, On The Origin Of Species
That doesn't seem to be punctuated equilibrium unless, it is in the way you interpret the fossil record. I see your point.
so explain to me how the information being analog would have struck a blow against ID.
The fact is, it isn't! I suspect if the information in DNA was either digital or analog, neo-Darwinists still attempt to explain the devolopment of life.
(1) This is complex.(2) Complex things have designers.(3) Therefore this was designed.(4) Therefore this did not evolve.
And then you accuse Jason Shapiro of a strawman in your next post!
I picked your post because it was the hardest to refute than the other ones in the past few hours. The five of you don't really win the debate against me. You people just wear me out.
Edited by traderdrew, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 269 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-22-2009 5:31 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 280 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-23-2009 12:31 AM traderdrew has replied

traderdrew
Member (Idle past 5154 days)
Posts: 379
From: Palm Beach, Florida
Joined: 04-27-2009


Message 278 of 1273 (540253)
12-23-2009 12:16 AM
Reply to: Message 276 by Dr Adequate
12-22-2009 11:48 PM


Re: ID Hides
I respect the work of Dr. Meyer and he didn't give me permission to post a gem like that, not that I have been in contact with him.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 276 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-22-2009 11:48 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 300 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-23-2009 11:06 PM traderdrew has replied

Iblis
Member (Idle past 3895 days)
Posts: 663
Joined: 11-17-2005


Message 279 of 1273 (540254)
12-23-2009 12:17 AM
Reply to: Message 275 by traderdrew
12-22-2009 11:44 PM


Re: Science vs Ideology
twelve intelligent design predictions!
Hardly. The most alluring in a pseudo-logic sense is thusly
Steve Meyer writes:
If an intelligent (and benevolent) agent designed life, then studies of putatively bad designs in life - such as the vertebrate retina and virulent bacteria - should reveal either (a) reasons for the designs that reveal a hidden functional logic or (b) evidence of decay of originally good designs.
This isn't a real prediction though, it shows something that has to not happen in order to falsify ID, which, isn't happening. Do you accept that ID is thereby falsified? Of course not.
Dembski has already prepared the groundwork for this one, if ever we develop even significantly more evidence that bad designs are intrinsic to this shebang we have here.
Bill Dembski writes:
the intelligent in "intelligent design" simply as referring to intelligent agency (irrespective of skill or mastery) and thus separates intelligent design from optimality of design.
Again, to make this clear; the prediction is a method to "prove" ID, not a method to falsify it. The prediction isn't happening. This doesn't falsify ID for believers; and if it did, they can simply cant about "intelligence" vs "optimality".
Meyer even pretends to argue with Dembski about defective trucks.
Biological structures have been around for at least thousands of years, consequently, there will be no bugs in them. Dembski is referring to any intelligent design including the floor mats designed by Toyota.
But there are bugs in them! Literally! We have a permanent case of spotted fever, and couldn't live without it. Species go extinct all the time. Does this falsify ID?
Not science.
PS: If the Flying Spaghetti Monster theory is true, then everything will be found to be either a) more like pasta than it once was; or b) degenerated from its more original pasta-like state ...
Edited by Iblis, : Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn

This message is a reply to:
 Message 275 by traderdrew, posted 12-22-2009 11:44 PM traderdrew has not replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 280 of 1273 (540255)
12-23-2009 12:31 AM
Reply to: Message 277 by traderdrew
12-23-2009 12:09 AM


Re: Flaws of ID
That doesn't seem to be punctuated equilibrium ...
That's exactly what punctuated equilibrium means.
What in the world do you think it means, and where in the world are you getting your ideas?
Here's Stephen Jay Gould, the most prominent modern exponent of P.E:
The process of speciation takes thousands or tens of thousands of years. This amount of time, so long when measured against our lives, is a geological microsecond.
--- Stephen Jay Gould, Evolution As Fact And Theory[/indent]
Or again:
Species form rapidly in geological perspective (thousands of years) and tend to remain highly stable for millions of years thereafter. --- Stephen Jay Gould, The Flamingo's Smile
Is there a hair's-breadth between what he's saying and what Darwin said?
The fact is, it isn't!
So do you agree that the fact that it is digital lends no particular credence to ID?
I suspect if the information in DNA was either digital or analog, neo-Darwinists still attempt to explain the devolopment of life.
And they would succeed, since experiment shows that evolutionary algorithms work equally well whether the information is discrete or continuous.
This is one reason why I am not going around claiming that the fact that it is digital is particularly evidence for evolution. You claimed it as evidence for ID. May I take it that you have now abandoned this position?
And then you accuse Jason Shapiro of a strawman in your next post!
Yes.
Now, do you have any objection to what I wrote? If you feel that I'm in error, please convict me of it, rather than just implying that it's there.
I picked your post because it was the hardest to refute than the other ones in the past few hours.
Not just hard, but apparently impossible. Which is why you've barely made an effort in that direction.
The five of you don't really win the debate against me.
Shall we take a vote on that?
You people just wear me out.
Trying to maintain creationism in the face of reality must indeed be exhausting. I freely admit that I have a much easier and less fatiguing task. But it's your choice --- you are not obliged to be wrong.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 277 by traderdrew, posted 12-23-2009 12:09 AM traderdrew has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 281 by traderdrew, posted 12-23-2009 12:49 AM Dr Adequate has replied

traderdrew
Member (Idle past 5154 days)
Posts: 379
From: Palm Beach, Florida
Joined: 04-27-2009


Message 281 of 1273 (540256)
12-23-2009 12:49 AM
Reply to: Message 280 by Dr Adequate
12-23-2009 12:31 AM


Re: Flaws of ID
Is there a hair's-breadth between what he's saying and what Darwin said?[/qs]
Why did you fail to post I that saw your point?
And they would succeed, since experiment shows that evolutionary algorithms work equally well whether the information is discrete or continuous.
At least one problem with your evolutionary algorithms is that they were "designed" and contained information in the first place.
And they would succeed, since experiment shows that evolutionary algorithms work equally well whether the information is discrete or continuous.
And it shows no matter what the evidence shows, Darwinian conjecture can and will bend and stretch to fit the evidence.
Now, do you have any objection to what I wrote? If you feel that I'm in error, please convict me of it, rather than just implying that it's there
What was missing from your analogy were (1) the steps necessary to make an irreducibly complex structure and (2) the hidden problems of a possible scientific explanation for its evolutionary development.
Shall we take a vote on that?
Not from bias participants.
Trying to maintain creationism in the face of reality must indeed be exhausting.
Another strawman. Creationism does not = ID.
I freely admit that I have a much easier and less fatiguing task. But it's your choice --- you are not obliged to be wrong.
You do demonstrate it profically. If I had help from three other ID proponents, I think we would be kicking your ^(&%$ around the moon by now.
Edited by traderdrew, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 280 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-23-2009 12:31 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 282 by Coyote, posted 12-23-2009 1:36 AM traderdrew has not replied
 Message 283 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-23-2009 2:41 AM traderdrew has not replied

Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 282 of 1273 (540257)
12-23-2009 1:36 AM
Reply to: Message 281 by traderdrew
12-23-2009 12:49 AM


Re: Flaws of IDers
If I had help from three other ID proponents, I think we would be kicking your ^(&%$ around the moon by now.
It is not the numbers that count but the strength of their arguments, and the evidence they bring.
ID is fighting an uphill battle because it is clearly a spin-off from religious belief, pushed almost entirely by fundamentalists who are trying to hide that fact, and has not been shown to have any scientific merit. In fact, much of its approach is anti-science--it has a conclusion based on religious belief and is looking to twist the data around in any way possible to support that belief. And the impetus for all of this was a US Supreme Court decision that threw creation "science" out of the schools--they had to come up with something quick to try to get back in the schools. The result, Paley's idea from the early 1800s dusted off and repackaged.
And who knows, it might even fool somebody!

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 281 by traderdrew, posted 12-23-2009 12:49 AM traderdrew has not replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 283 of 1273 (540264)
12-23-2009 2:41 AM
Reply to: Message 281 by traderdrew
12-23-2009 12:49 AM


Re: Flaws of ID
Why did you fail to post I that saw your point? ...
Because that is not what the phrase: "That doesn't seem to be punctuated equilibrium" actually conveyed in that context.
At least one problem with your evolutionary algorithms is that they were "designed" and contained information in the first place.
They were not designed. They were copied from nature. If I take a plaster cast of a lobster, did I "design" the result?
Now, being sane, I suppose that what can be said about the power of an algorithm that simulates evolution can be said about evolution itself; but if you disagree, perhaps you should write to William Dembski and tell him, 'cos that's the only point in his argument that seems to be correct, and it would be a shame for him to spoil an otherwise perfectly blemished record.
And it shows no matter what the evidence shows, Darwinian conjecture can and will bend and stretch to fit the evidence.
That manages to be both a lie and a non sequitur. Well done!
What was missing from your analogy were (1) the steps necessary to make an irreducibly complex structure and (2) the hidden problems of a possible scientific explanation for its evolutionary development.
It was not an analogy. For point (1) look up the set of intermediate forms showing the evolution of the mammalian middle ear; and as for point (2) it is not up to me to make your arguments for you. It is you (and Dembski) who have failed to show these "hidden problems". I guess that's why they're hidden. That and the fact that they don't exist.
Not from bias participants.
Well, would you claim that your opinion was unbiased?
Another strawman. Creationism does not = ID.
That's not what Judge Jones said.
Would you like to read over the following two passages and see if you can identify the difference between creationism and intelligent design?
Intelligent design means that various forms of life began abruptly through an intelligent agency with their distinctive features already intact: Fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks and wings. --- Of Pandas And People as it was eventually published.
Creation means that the various forms of life began abruptly through the agency of an intelligent creator with their distinctive features already intact. Fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks, and wings, etc. --- Of Pandas And People as it was first drafted.
You do demonstrate it profically. If I had help from three other ID proponents, I think we would be kicking your ^(&%$ around the moon by now.
As a matter of fact, just one would do the job --- if only he was right.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 281 by traderdrew, posted 12-23-2009 12:49 AM traderdrew has not replied

Peepul
Member (Idle past 5018 days)
Posts: 206
Joined: 03-13-2009


Message 284 of 1273 (540269)
12-23-2009 6:21 AM
Reply to: Message 257 by traderdrew
12-22-2009 2:56 PM


Re: Flaws of ID
quote:
But the neo-Darwinian advocates claim to be scientists, and we can legitimately expect of them a more open spirit of inquiry. Instead, they assume a defensive posture of outraged orthodoxy and assert an unassailable claim to truth, which only serves to validate the Creationists' criticism that Darwinism has become more of a faith than a science.
No, it shows that they hate creationists for trying to subvert and bypass the scientific method.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 257 by traderdrew, posted 12-22-2009 2:56 PM traderdrew has not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 285 of 1273 (540272)
12-23-2009 8:12 AM
Reply to: Message 265 by traderdrew
12-22-2009 4:53 PM


Re: Flaws of CSI
traderdrew writes:
Dembski applied it to the flagellum. See the following link.
Dover Judge Regurgitates Mythological History of Intelligent Design | Discovery Institute
I assume the other replies already noted this, but you're being given the runaround. Your link is to an article that claims Dembski has applied his calculations for CSI to the flagellum, and that article contains a link to a page at Amazon.com for Dembski's book, No Free Lunch: Why Specified Complexity Cannot Be Purchased without Intelligence, which I presume you haven't read. Nowhere in anything associated with that link is there a description of how Dembski calculated the CSI of the flagellum, but you're claiming it is so anyway. What's actually happening is that you're just repeating the claim in the article, which is just repeating the claim of the book, which is full of nonsense.
In other words, you're not repeating the claim because you've seen and understood the calculation. You've never seen the calculation. You could never have seen the calculation, because no one's ever seen the calculation, not even Dembski. That's because the calculation doesn't exist. You're just repeating what you've been told and hoping it is true. If it were true then you'd be able to find somewhere on the net someone saying something like, "Dembski has calculated the bacterial flagellum to have 1,423 bits of CSI, and you can find the calculation on page 127 of his book," because no such calculation appears anywhere in his book. If it did actually exist people would be able to go to that page in his book and say, "Omigod, Dembski has done it, CSI is real!"
But nothing like this will ever happen because Dembski's books are just a gigantic hand wave with no substance. His books belong in the same bookstore isle as books like 2012, the Bible, and the End of the World.
Stop letting yourself be led on this wild goose chase. Keep seeking that calculation until you actually find it, and until then stop telling us it exists.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 265 by traderdrew, posted 12-22-2009 4:53 PM traderdrew has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024