Apology to Prof Lawrence Krauss

Joseph:

Implied not inferred.

That was my initial reaction too, but on second reading, I think idnet really meant inferred. By

...a posting which inferred, based entirely on the quotes in a Telegraph UK interview (see here), that...

he meant more or less "...a posting expressing an idea which I had inferred, based entirely on the quotes in a Telegraph UK interview(see here), to the effect that..." Tedsenough:

I think it’s pretty big of Prof. Krauss to come here and accept the apology too.

Hear, hear. I'm impressed on both counts. lars

I think it's pretty big of Prof. Krauss to come here and accept the apology too. I could see alot of other critics (or people in general) acting indignant even after receiving an apology. Tedsenough

I believe Dr. Krauss made a comment about the article on the original thread that has since been taken down. Is it possible to post that as part of this thread? jerry

This kind of mistake has occurred a little too often here recently, imo. Authors need to be more cautious in the future and double-check sources. Otherwise UD will become just another PT clone for ID, a TO.org like bull shit site or simply a site ignored by the public - and we'll have deserved it. While I personally see Krauss to be yet another highly educated materialist dupe; a smart dupe but a dupe nonetheless. I think authors here are a little too quick to pick up scraps of info for debunking or mockery. Our job is not mere debunking or mocking the gullibility & blindness of neo-Darwinists, but intelligently and politely presenting the vast amount of info available that contradicts Darwinism, atheism and materialism in general. Of course, that said, I don't mind an occasional insulting article to truly deserving parties such as PZ, that dinosaur Dawkins, L. Moron or several other inane drone proselytists of militant materialist pseudo-science. ;-) Borne

Big man. Takes one to apologize publicly. Atom Atom

Lawrence Krauss, The original page along with this apology page was written solely by idnet.com.au and not Bill Dembski. UD writers can write pages without Bill's permission, even when writers may disagree with Bill on some issues. Patrick

Thank you very much. I do appreciate that Bill. Lawrence Krauss lawkrs

Implied not inferred. IOW this sentence

I would like to apologise to Prof Krauss for a posting which inferred,

should have been: I would like to apologise to Prof Krauss for a posting which implied,... A person reading that post may have inferred, but the post, at best, could only make an implication. But anyway... Joseph

Id.net I think it is a good idea to apologize just to be safe. I admire that kind of intellectual cordiality. Collin

It seems to me that the Telegraph owes Krauss an apology as well. After all, the article reporting his observations is entitled, "Mankind shortening the universe's life." (Maybe Krauss should apologize to himself?) Lutepisc

So what WAS Kraus suggesting if not that? Just curious. nullasalus

I don't see what is so wrong with Prof. Krauss' assertion. If you've watched the movie "What The Bleep Do We Know", you'd know that sometimes mere observation of particles can change their behaviour. It is more evidence for Design. They say God sees everything; maybe this is how everything is able to exist despite the Second Law of Thermodynamics. cdesignproponentsists

Yes I did not want to continue the apparently unjustified criticism. idnet.com.au

Has the original thread been taken down? Bob Bob O'H