RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (356) < [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... >   
  Topic: Uncommonly Dense Thread 4, Fostering a Greater Understanding of IDC< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 21 2013,11:49   

Quote (stevestory @ Mar. 21 2013,12:41)
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.



--------------
You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat

I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

  
  10669 replies since Aug. 31 2011,21:06 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (356) < [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

[ Read the Board Rules ] | [Useful Links] | [Evolving Designs]