Intelligent Design vs. Casino Universe

FBM wrote:

You're pretending that it's yours and you didn't cite the source. Plagiarism.

     When you claim something - perhaps you will have to prove it. Why don't you find out the source from where it is supposed to have been plagiarized. You simply can't bare the fact there may exist people that might have their own streaming of reasoning and are not citing all the time unprocessed, irrelevant, and inappropriate quotes, made on some other occasions, irrelevant to the discussion.

Plagiarism.

Notice how you go from broken English to fluency in that post, then back to broken English again.

I just "bared" your deep-seated intellectual dishonesty.

Again. You've still got nothing but logical fallacies, motivated reasoning, evasion and hand-waving.

Until you can present some evidence for your "personal 45% god/ILF-of-the-gaps,"

the score remains: 4:0

WHAT IS PLAGIARISM?

Many people think of plagiarism as copying another's work or borrowing someone else's original ideas. But terms like "copying" and "borrowing" can disguise the seriousness of the offense:

ACCORDING TO THE MERRIAM-WEBSTER ONLINE DICTIONARY, TO "PLAGIARIZE" MEANS

to steal and pass off (the ideas or words of another) as one's own
to use (another's production) without crediting the source
to commit literary theft
to present as new and original an idea or product derived from an existing source
In other words, plagiarism is an act of fraud. It involves both stealing someone else's work and lying about it afterward.

BUT CAN WORDS AND IDEAS REALLY BE STOLEN?

According to U.S. law, the answer is yes. The expression of original ideas is considered intellectual property and is protected by copyright laws, just like original inventions. Almost all forms of expression fall under copyright protection as long as they are recorded in some way (such as a book or a computer file).

ALL OF THE FOLLOWING ARE CONSIDERED PLAGIARISM:

turning in someone else's work as your own
copying words or ideas from someone else without giving credit
failing to put a quotation in quotation marks
giving incorrect information about the source of a quotation
changing words but copying the sentence structure of a source without giving credit
copying so many words or ideas from a source that it makes up the majority of your work, whether you give credit or not (see our section on "fair use" rules)
Most cases of plagiarism can be avoided, however, by citing sources. Simply acknowledging that certain material has been borrowed and providing your audience with the information necessary to find that source is usually enough to prevent plagiarism. See our section on citation for more information on how to cite sources properly.

You should be ashamed, Herod.

Too bad more people here in A2K don't pay attention to that part about "...we're not afraid to admit we don't know."

Quote:

Too bad more people here in A2K don't pay attention to that part about "...we're not afraid to admit we don't know."

I get the sense that you suffer from the opposite predicament, Frank: you are afraid to admit that you know, and you don't like it when others say they know.

It's not really thinking when you mindlessly repeat patently false conspiracy theories

You should be ashamed, Herod.

Because you don't understand the math and don't have any of your own.

And yet you pretended you had math that proved the math for the standard model is wrong.

Here the math is only representation, the real model is physics, in the real world ... if you haven't paid attention.

The math has predicted things that have been found in the real world after the math predicted them.

You seem to keep back tracking and ignoring the real world.

You certainly haven't been able to defend your claims.

FBM wrote:

You should be ashamed, Herod.

... of what? BTW the score is 4 : [ten trillion trillion ... tera-degrees Kelvin] in my benefit.

parados wrote:

And yet you pretended you had math that proved the math for the standard model is wrong.

     The Standard Model does not have any math. All it has are partial math inferences leading to pieces of a puzzle that don't match. If you can call that a math.

Standard Model (mathematical formulation)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Standard Model of Physics

For a less mathematical description, see Standard Model.
This article describes the mathematics of the Standard Model of particle physics, a gauge quantum field theory containing the internal symmetries of the unitary product group SU(3) × SU(2) × U(1). The theory is commonly viewed as containing the fundamental set of particles – the leptons, quarks, gauge bosons and the Higgs particle.
The Standard Model is renormalizable and mathematically self-consistent,[1] however despite having huge and continued successes in providing experimental predictions it does leave some unexplained phenomena. In particular, although the physics of special relativity is incorporated, general relativity is not, and the Standard Model will fail at energies or distances where the graviton is expected to emerge. Therefore in a modern field theory context, it is seen as an effective field theory.
This article requires some background in physics and mathematics, but is designed as both an introduction and a reference.
...