Posted on 04/29/2008 10:20:32 AM PDT by Hank Kerchief
I guess it is the same old “cdesign proponentist” tactic of attacking the fundamental nature of Scientific inquiry and when Science rises to its defense crying “What are you so defensive about?”
I am defensive about the truth. Anyone who read that garbage and thought it was true would be ill served by this wonderful Internet site and make themselves look like a fool when they repeat its nonsense.
OK, off to work, and I need to stop posting at work so nothing more from me until after work.
Interpretation:
I did work on NF-kappa B.
(Read about it.)
I mentioned my publication (please do try to keep up)
(Afraid to say it again.)
I do lab research every day, mostly on drug metabolism.
(I wash bottles.)
I lectured at the University level for four years.
(Talked in the pub after classes.)
Hank
“This seems like reasoned discourse to me, under a barrage of ad hominem attacks no less; and your repeated failure to either address you shoddy labeling of me and Coyoteman as Postmodernists or the numerous and verifiable errors in the authors writing.”
Poor baby!
Hank
Well young sir, you should do your homework better.
Interestingly I find only three publications on ARO9 on PubMed, and all three are out of Belgium.
I just found it !!
Oh, I didnt realise it would be there either. Thanks for the headsup
link it.
Here is a link to the only papers I can find by searching ARO9 in PubMed. As I stated all three are out of Belgium. Also none of the authors seems to have a first name that starts with P.
Sigh.
You really should try to keep up.
aromatic biosynthesis occurs in most prokaryotes and some simple lower eukaryotes.
I did say what it was.
Now, try the search with the name of the organism.
And be patient.
What was the link to your latest paper again?
This isn’t about me and my qualifications, it is about the numerous factual errors and resume padding of the author of the “Hewitt Conjecture!!” (double exclamation points mandatory). You claim she has publication(s), please produce them.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/2009777/posts?page=1
This new one is even sillier than the last one.
His intellectual content is on par with what is usually deposited in a handkerchief and I think it is time I bowed out of the evo/crevo debate as much as possible (unfortunately I find it nearly impossible to not try to correct blatant mischaracterizations and misstatements about Biology or Science, so that makes it difficult; as most “cdesign proponentists” have nothing but).
Maybe if we ignore this particular snott-rag the thread will die a deserved death.
But thanks for the ping! I always enjoy your posts.
"It wouldn’t really matter. If I design a machine that immediately goes bad on its, it’s a bad design."
I thought we were talking about animals eating each other.
"I thought we were talking about animals eating each other."
“Do you consider the possibility that living things, as Designed, did not initially kill each other?”
"It wouldn’t really matter. If I design a machine that immediately goes bad on its, it’s a bad design.
Hank"
What if the Designer didn't want a 'perfect machine' that would last for eternity?
What if our idea of a perfect design is not what he had in mind?
If the Designer is indeed Sovereign, would not it be his prerogative?
Bingo Fichori!!!
Psalm 90:10 10 Seventy years are given to us! Some even live to eighty. But even the best years are filled with pain and trouble; soon they disappear, and we fly away.
I may think as fast as Moses could talk, but by Gods grace, I get it right eventually.
Fichori said:
I may think as fast as Moses could talk, but by Gods grace, I get it right eventually.
LOL...there you go Fichori.
Look, you obviously believe in ID, and I’m not interested in changing your beliefs, anymore than I’m interested in changing the evolutionists’ beliefs. (By belief I only mean what one holds to be true for whatever reason.) So please understand I’m not really arguing with your belief, only explaining mine.
To me, what you are doing is what the evolutionists do. If the evidence doesn’t exactly fit the story, you change the story.
ID bases its argument, supposedly, on the evidence, evidence that says things look like they’ve been designed and couldn’t just have happened on their own. Look at the order.
So when someone points out flaws and disorder in the design, you add “it was intended that way” to the story. But how do you get the “disorder was intended that way” from the evidence? You can’t.
So, the idea that ID somehow suggests a designer just doesn’t float, because to make it work, you have to assume the designer.
That’s how it appears to me, and the reason I cannot subscribe to it.
Hank
"Look, you obviously believe in ID, and I’m not interested in changing your beliefs, anymore than I’m interested in changing the evolutionists’ beliefs. (By belief I only mean what one holds to be true for whatever reason.) So please understand I’m not really arguing with your belief, only explaining mine.
To me, what you are doing is what the evolutionists do. If the evidence doesn’t exactly fit the story, you change the story.
ID bases its argument, supposedly, on the evidence, evidence that says things look like they’ve been designed and couldn’t just have happened on their own. Look at the order.
So when someone points out flaws and disorder in the design, you add “it was intended that way” to the story. But how do you get the “disorder was intended that way” from the evidence? You can’t.
So, the idea that ID somehow suggests a designer just doesn’t float, because to make it work, you have to assume the designer.
That’s how it appears to me, and the reason I cannot subscribe to it.
Hank"
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.