Joined: Mar. 2007
|Quote (Dr.GH @ Sep. 30 2010,11:02)|
|Well, I dropped a somewhat broader hint regarding peptidyltransferase. I hope you won't mind.|
It would have to be several light-years broad before that IDiot gets it...
This is truly a classic exchange.
1) Incurious creationist swallows absolute bald-faced lies emitted by some orifice of a DI Fellow.
2) Lies are noted by scientist, but not explicitly pointed out, asking creationist to find them if he/she is truly interested in the evidence.
3) Creationist, who learned no biology in school and lots of pseudoscience in church, flounders at this task.
4) Mocking ensues from scientists.
5) Creationist initiates discussion of religion, morals and ethics rather than talk about the evidence.
6) Lather, rinse, repeat.
This whole thing is exactly like a discussion with FtK or StephenB or BA^77. And FtK wonders why one would be reluctant to discuss religion in a conversation that started out as a discussion of science.
Flesh of the sky, child of the sky, the mind
Has been obligated from the beginning
To create an ordered universe
As the only possible proof of its own inheritance.
- Pattiann Rogers