stevestory
Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005
|
| Quote (Kattarina98 @ Mar. 21 2013,10:27) | KD wants evidence: | Quote | | Until Matzke actually starts doing science by itemizing the list of proteins required for a simple light sensitive spot, and then itemizing the list of proteins required for fully developed vertebrate eye, and then provides a testable method to go from list A to list B, Matzke hasn’t even begun to refute Thorley [sic!], or to defend a darwinian process, or to even do science. Matzke confuses creative story telling, combined with dodging and evading the core issues, with doing science. |
KD, you are letting Nick Matzke off the hook way too soon. We want the process itemized atom for atom, complete with the probability calculation.
In the meantime, try to memorize the spelling of your friend's name. |
I'm always amazed when someone thinks they get the upper hand by demanding that science prove them wrong to their satisfaction. That's Grade A, USDA-approved cluelessness.
But, we live in a country where nearly half the public disbelieves evidence provided by fucking thermometers, so it shouldn't surprise me.
|
