Customer Discussions > Science forum

An Open Intelligent Design Challenge

This discussion has reached the maximum length permitted, and cannot accept new replies. Start a new discussion


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 2876-2900 of 1000 posts in this discussion
In reply to an earlier post on Oct 19, 2012 7:25:10 PM PDT
DRM says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 19, 2012 7:33:59 PM PDT
Allan says:
''Congratulations for Your Certainty and for your Beliefs that have become Like A Religion For You.''

A religion which has hidden depths, secret handshakes, sacramental wine and patisseries beyond belief, hymns you wouldn't want your mother to hear, and a wide range of rites and rituals reserved only for the highest-ranked initiates.

Right, Irish Lace?

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 19, 2012 7:45:22 PM PDT
"You only care to compare credentials or spew labels thinly at argument time."

No, Richard --- you are the one who challenges people to present their credentials, boasting of your masters thesis. But, if they have ones that supercede your own, then they must be demonized in some way --- like I noted previously, your comments to David Levin are virtually cut and paste from your ones to me.

And, as must be obvious to all here, if I really were the incompetent subjective muddled arguer you claim here, then I would be unable to publish science at the rate and volume that I do. Oh, that's right, that's why you have to keep imagining that I just rubber stamp what students do in my name, so that you can keep your fantasy about how you're superior to me in scientific endeavours. What a joke.

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 19, 2012 7:47:47 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Oct 19, 2012 7:55:40 PM PDT
Martin Lyons says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 19, 2012 7:50:40 PM PDT
" Oh, so now mice have no cavity to be found in their mouth?"

Interesting garbling of what I said. Mice teeth are much more complex and derived than yours or mine -- we retain the primitive mammalian pattern of discrete cusps (paracone, metacone, protocone, and hypercone), mice have run these cusps into a series of complex lamellae (or ridges) that no longer have clear homology with our own teeth (although homology can be traced through developmental studies).

"SO WHAT IS IT, CHRISTINE? ARE MICE DIFFERENT OR THE SAME ANATOMICALLY AS HUMANS?"

Mice are extremely similar to humans in overall mammalian anatomy. However, inasmuch as all species of mammals exhibit differences from one another in details over and above the basic pattern, humans and mice do indeed differ in some details.

"Can you see how hard it is to keep everything straight at times with you? "

Perhaps your scientific background will help in understanding this rather basic notion.

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 19, 2012 7:50:56 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Oct 19, 2012 8:48:17 PM PDT
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 19, 2012 7:52:57 PM PDT
"Unsurprisingly, none of you could offer anything remotely like an on-point counter-argument, "

Some of us are too busy doing actual science to bother with answering such nonsense.

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 19, 2012 7:53:06 PM PDT
Allan says:
Martin: ....

Allan: Reminds me of the line

''....a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing." ''

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 19, 2012 7:54:15 PM PDT
"Like, real scientists, not just little ole unknown PhD's (and boy, I hear it's tough even for you guys to get jobs these days - there's just so many of you, and not enough places that can actually recognize you really do have any useful skills)? "

Oh, David and I post under our real names. Don't be afraid to check out our credentials on the web.

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 19, 2012 8:01:39 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Oct 19, 2012 8:10:54 PM PDT
"I entered this forum with the hope of having interesting dialog, respectful and thoughtful -"

HAHAHAHAHAHA

"I have lived and travelled in so many countries since leaving England nigh 40 years ago, and I have certainly met fanatics of different groups everywhere - but aside from truly hardcore fake-Islamic fundamentalists, the two most intolerant and puffed-up groups I have met anywhere in the world are the American so-called Christian right and the American atheistic intellectuals. "

So, have I Martin, travelled many countries since leaving the UK in 1973 (I know that you like to think of yourself as a man of the world, deigning to visit us little people --- please get over yourself). And what I would recommend is that you don't decide that you know what someone's religion is from the fact that they accept and/or practice certain types of science.

"If you do indeed find what I have pointed out here to be interesting, please feel free to download my new ebook from Lulu or Amazon, or if you are in India, it just came out on Google also, and it may already be out on iBooks."

You are also welcome to visit my books on Amazon. I don't have books on Lulu, because I don't have to self publish.

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 19, 2012 8:04:43 PM PDT
"Of course, one cannot expect less than expression of genotype into phenotype makeup. "

But this does not explain the similarity in the phylogenetic patterns of mitochondrial DNA, endogenous retroviruses, pseudogenes, and various other bits of genomic baggage that have nothing to do with phenotypic expression, but merely reflect historical processes.

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 19, 2012 8:29:21 PM PDT
Re David E. Levin, 10-19 5:58 PM: "He's virtually giving it away and yet.... " The San Francisco Zoo bags up its cage cleanings and sells it as Zoo Do. Maybe Martin can sell his book that way....

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 19, 2012 8:32:20 PM PDT
Re DRM, 10-19 7:25 PM: "How exactly does Something Arise from Nothing?" Happens all the time. Check out "Casimir effect" for details.

In the case of the big bang, things are a bit more complicated. See Krauss [1] for details.

1. Krauss, A Universe from Nothing: Why There Is Something Rather than Nothing.

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 19, 2012 8:33:10 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Oct 19, 2012 8:38:16 PM PDT
RR says:
Martin,
"Naturally this particular post will receive so much sneering etc.,"
Yet another post where you've failed to post what specifically about fluke evolution falsifies evolutionary theory and another failure to address the posts of David Levin about fluke evolution.

Hmmm...What's up? Ignorance got your tongue? Are you still just peddling your Argument from Liver-Fluke? (the argument that no evidence for an evolutionary event constitutes a falsification of evolutionary theory.)

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 19, 2012 8:35:17 PM PDT
Re Lyons, 10-19 7:47 PM: "the hope of having interesting dialog..." You cannot expect to have interesting dialog unless you put up intelligent posts. You haven't.

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 19, 2012 8:38:50 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Oct 19, 2012 8:40:23 PM PDT
Christine M. Janis wrote:

"But this does not explain the similarity in the phylogenetic patterns of mitochondrial DNA, endogenous retroviruses, pseudogenes, and various other bits of genomic baggage that have nothing to do with phenotypic expression, but merely reflect historical processes. "
===================================

What is the split ratio of non-phenotypic to phenotypic genomic determinants?

Farther, historic processes based on "chaos and chance" would kill the theory of evolution without a search for the main culprits of design.

A perfect and safe ID could be easily spotted in the nuclear pattern that nested isotopes for the 92 elements of the periodic table. That was also discovered through the pattern recognition of maximal abundance of elements with periodic variation in the alpha particles content of nuclei.

Looking through the eyes of biologists, one should ask whether there is specific number of sub-hierarchies for each distinct species hierarchy, to which one could find a periodic mathematical relationship.

That would simply throw the theory of evolution in the corner of nuclear physics, which is fitter in number crunching than biochemistry.

Mohamed F. El-Hewie

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 19, 2012 8:44:14 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Oct 19, 2012 9:10:24 PM PDT
RR says:
Martin,
"I have lived and travelled in so many countries since leaving England nigh 40 years ago, and I have certainly met fanatics of different groups everywhere - but aside from truly hardcore fake-Islamic fundamentalists, the two most intolerant and puffed-up groups I have met anywhere in the world are the American so-called Christian right and the American atheistic intellectuals."

We have something in common! In all my travels, the two most intolerant and puffed up groups I have met anywhere in the world are the American so-called Christian right and the new age pseudo-intellectuals, like you! The main difference is that I've found you're type of pseudo-intellectual can be found all over the world. You typically mask willful ignorance through appeals to incredulity and common sense.

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 19, 2012 8:58:24 PM PDT
Deckard says:
Marty Lyons said:
"I entered this forum with the hope of having interesting dialog"

The only question left is whether you are a liar or delusional.

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 19, 2012 10:29:27 PM PDT
HelVee says:
M: "I want to hear your ability to answer"

......via the voices in his head?

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 19, 2012 10:34:31 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Oct 19, 2012 10:50:50 PM PDT
HelVee says:
SVS: "your line of defense on Creationism is quiet strong, as can be seen on how this wannabe scientists are ganging up on you to mark down your posts."

.....So the more disagreement to an argument, the greater the likelihood that it's right?

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 20, 2012 1:44:41 AM PDT
IL: " Like Richard, you simply wish to use many, many, many words to deny what you either can't or won't accept - facts."

Words that you don't comprehend and can't even grammatically parse, because you don't understand scientific methodology to either 1) refute them, or 2) show that they don't regard scientific methodology. You just go blank...and call it words. Even toddlers could tell you that. And that's the crux of it -- it's only memory overload for you. That's as deep as you get; not as it gets, though.

You have three legitimate choices : refute it using support or an expert's actual refutation elsewhere, demonstrate it's irrelevancy using your scientific knowlege (and not vain ridicule alone or cop-out as you just did), or concede the point. IF YOU CALL IT SIMPLY TOO MANY WORDS, YOU VIOLATE THE INFORMAL FALLACY OF BABY-BABBLE EQUIVOCATION.

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 20, 2012 1:47:46 AM PDT
IL: "Not without testing and evidence it doesn't."

Yes, it does. In the pseudoscience of evolution it most certainly does.

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 20, 2012 1:48:29 AM PDT
Allan says:
''You have three legitimate choices : refute it using support or an expert's actual refutation elsewhere...''

I thought that had been the main thrust of every single poster who has actually taken the time to address anything Richard Cranium has said, Irish Lace.

Hasn't worked, has it?

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 20, 2012 1:51:09 AM PDT
DEL: "I was going to ask about that. He's virtually giving it away and yet...."

So blabber gassed (sic) and befuddled that you can't write a complete sentence, eh, David??

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 20, 2012 1:53:09 AM PDT
DEL: "Hehe. And what about those of us who ARE real scientists? What chance do we have? .....putz"

Evolution turns you allcomicall, doesn't it?!
Discussion locked

 

This discussion

Discussion in:  Science forum
Participants:  120
Total posts:  10000
Initial post:  Jul 23, 2012
Latest post:  Sep 5, 2013

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 11 customers

Search Customer Discussions