quote:
Originally posted by peter borger:
Dear SLPx,
You say:
"Well, I am not Pamboli, and I plan on dealing with your thread opening post shortly, but here is why I think you are a creationist:
1. Limited knowledge of topics does not prevent you from declaring your opinions to be beyond reproach. Examples: This thread, for one; your folly on the foramen magnum; etc.
This is acommon creationist trait. Read any post by Fred Williams - an electrical engineer - and you can easily see what I mean."
My response:
All I demonstrated is that evolution is NOT AT ALL a fact as so often reiterated in the media.
You did no such thing.
quote:
As a matter of fact I demonstrated that i) the the 1G5 gene violates NDT, ii) the human ZFY region violates the hype of evolution, iii) genetic redundancies cannot be explained by the hype of evolution (e.g. alpha actinin). All you do is i) deny it, ii) ignore it.
I 'deny it and ignore it' because your interpretations seem quite unwarranted - I consider them unwarranted extrapolations.
quote:
I encountered these traits before while trying to get responses from evolutionary experts in the field. So, lack of response determined me to post it here. In my opinion evolutionists are ignoring a (huge) problem.
And those 'experts in the field' probably saw your 'falsifications' much the same way I do. Hence, no detailed response.
quote:
Why do you refer to Fred as being an electrical engineer?
Because that is what he is.
quote:
Even if he was an airguitarist in an airband his calculations seem pretty much okay. You could have demonstrated to me where he went wrong in his calculations, instead of calling us 'dumb and dumber'.
If you don't want a dialogue why did you register to this forum?
Fred can calculatre all day long, and you can heap accolades upon a fellow creationoist to your heart's content.
His premises are foundationless.
Ask him for the evidence that more than 1667 fixed beneficial mutations are required to account for
Homo to have evolved from an ape-like ancestor.
Ask him why he sees no problem using evolution-based studies when he thinks he can calim them as anti-evolution evidence, yet claims that the use of similar studies are "circular" and such when he cannot.
quote:
You also say:
"2. The notion of yours that you have 'disproved' the NDT, yet are as yet unwilling or unable to provide a concise description of this falsification. Looking through other threads, I see you repeatedly write things like "I already explained it", yet looking back, there is no explanation at all.
My response:
"Maybe you should look back further. You will even find the scientific references that back up my statements"
I have seen your scientific references. I have also seen how you approach them. I have seen you declare references support for your position prior to even reading them. I have seen others demonstrate that your interpretations are at odds with the actual data.
So you will forgive me for not calling the Nobel folks right away...
quote:
Common creationist tactic - declare victory before the race began (for a HUGE example of this, see:
http://www.arn.org/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_top... )
Common creationist tactic.
You also say:
3. Taking evidence against your position and claiming that it is actually evidence for it.
Common creationist tactic (Williams exels in this one).
My opinion:
"This item is redundant, since it is already covered by item 4."
You say:
4. Proclaiming that evidence against your position is actually evidence for it despite not even reading the article which contains said evidence.Common creationist tactic.
I say, carefully read what 3 and 4 actually say. I suspect that this is a clue as to your odd interpretations, perhaps. There are qualitative differences between 3 and 4. Please try again.
quote:
I say:
This is an unwarrented conclusion. Having a different opinion on certain topics regarding molecular data does not mean that I did not read it.
Correct. The fact that you first declared the citations support for your position and then, about 4 days later, wrote that you actually had the time to look through them makes my conclusion warranted. That you later dug out a sentence or two that you thought supported your original baseless assertion is irrelevant.
You denied and ignored the fact that the papers all clearly demonstrate that mutations are random with regard to fitness, and were not directed at the 'beneficial' genes.
Therefore, it is pretty obvious that your interpretations are suspect.
quote:
Besides, here you refer to an article you mailed to Fred Williams (the Science-article about the alleged Cairns recantation, remember?) and not to me. So, this item doesn't even make sense.
It makes perfect sense, since Cairns was the originator of the directed-mutation hypothesis. He had much to lose by recanting, yet did so because of what additional data indicated.
quote:
Finally you say:
5. Proclaiming that 'science' will someday 'prove' that the evidence for evolution is false. Way common creationist tactic.
I say:
Actually, science is proving that much of evolutionary claims are wrong. I already discussed several socalled vestiges, e.g. i) thymus, ii) tonsils, iii) appendix, iv) horse hoofmuscles, v) junk DNA, vi) genetic redundancies, etc.
LOL!!!
Yup, Pete, you did just that, didn't you?
quote:
You say:
While I have yet to see you write "I am a creationist", the clues are like beacons in the night. I understand that it seems to be the M.O. de juor for creationmists to claim not to be, to, perhaps, try to retain an air of credibility. Alas, it is too difficult to retreat from the all-too-common ways and means of the creationist.
You ain't doing it, either.
My personal opinion:
"You like mantras (favorite one: 'common creationist tactic' and possibly you also like the one that goes: 'evolution is a fact') and you like jumping the gun".
I don't recall writing "evolution is a fact." maybe you can point it out to me?
My 'mantra' - well, I was making a list, wasn't I?
quote:
Best wishes,
(Oye, I am not your personal enemy, I simply do not belief the story anymore)
Peter
I don't consider you an enemy. I just think you are fooling yourself, and will probably make a fool of yourself if you continue on with this hore-sense in your profession. Frankly, I do not think that you are the "Peter Borger" from the literature. I think you either just happen to have the same name as a real researcher and decided to run with it, or you decided to pose as him. I believe this because, as I pointed out, you have made exceedingly illogical and uninformed arguments. Most professional scientists - those that are not creationists, anyway - tend to at least learn the basics of a set of facts prior to taking a public stand on them.
™ Version 4.2
