Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 78 (8896 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 03-21-2019 5:26 AM
43 online now:
Tangle, vimesey (2 members, 41 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 848,522 Year: 3,559/19,786 Month: 554/1,087 Week: 144/212 Day: 11/49 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev12
3
Author Topic:   an example of ID research and paper
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 552 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 31 of 35 (471918)
06-19-2008 8:48 AM
Reply to: Message 30 by randman
06-19-2008 1:55 AM


Re: Bad sentence in the original post.
randman writes:

Just correcting the blatant falsehood oft-repeated here that somehow there are no ID papers and research. It's a shame you are not just admitting that, yes, it's wrong for evos here to falsely claim no ID research and papers are done, but that appears to much to ask of some, I suppose.

Don't be childish. You can't explain how the paper supports intelligent design, and that's because it doesn't. You've managed more than 6,000 posts on this site without presenting one single shred of evidence for the existence of the intelligent designer of your desires, and that's pathetic.

You (or Dr. Axe) asserting that a paper is evidence for I.D. does not make it so.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by randman, posted 06-19-2008 1:55 AM randman has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by randman, posted 06-19-2008 9:40 PM bluegenes has responded

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 2974 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 32 of 35 (471988)
06-19-2008 9:40 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by bluegenes
06-19-2008 8:48 AM


Re: Bad sentence in the original post.
Actually, I've presented a ton of evidence but mainly I prefer to look at the data itself and try to get a handle on what the data indicates rather than push an ideology/theory. You should try taking that stance sometime. It's refreshing.

As far as the paper, I agree fully with the author. However, this is Side Orders so such intricacies are not appropiate here.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by bluegenes, posted 06-19-2008 8:48 AM bluegenes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by bluegenes, posted 06-20-2008 12:17 AM randman has not yet responded

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 552 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 33 of 35 (472021)
06-20-2008 12:17 AM
Reply to: Message 32 by randman
06-19-2008 9:40 PM


Re: Bad sentence in the original post.
randman writes:

Actually, I've presented a ton of evidence....

Must have all been before my time, then....:)

...but mainly I prefer to look at the data itself and try to get a handle on what the data indicates rather than push an ideology/theory.

Really? I always got the impression that you were pushing a religious view.

You should try taking that stance sometime. It's refreshing.

I actually have. I was brought up to believe that an intelligent designer created all things bright and beautiful, but I looked at the data, and de-programmed myself, shedding that childhood indoctrination decades ago. You should try it some time. It's refreshing.

As far as the paper, I agree fully with the author. However, this is Side Orders so such intricacies are not appropiate here.

Ah, how unfortunate. Especially because you must be straining at the leash to add to your tons of evidence, but are cruelly prevented from doing so because some fool brought up the subject of Dr. Axe's work in the wrong section of the site.

When I've got time, I'll start a thread on Axe's research (if you don't get there first, in your eagerness to enlighten us as to why it shows evidence for your designer). See you there.:)


This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by randman, posted 06-19-2008 9:40 PM randman has not yet responded

  
Adminnemooseus
Director
Posts: 3879
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 34 of 35 (472034)
06-20-2008 2:10 AM


References from message 1 etc. - A review
Message 1 refers to:
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2007/01/journal_of_molecular_biology_a.html

Which in turn refers to the two abstracts:
1
2

The second of these was outlined and discussed at "Panda's Thumb" here:
http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2007/01/92-second-st-fa.html

Adminnemooseus


Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by bluegenes, posted 06-20-2008 3:28 AM Adminnemooseus has not yet responded

    
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 552 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 35 of 35 (472044)
06-20-2008 3:28 AM
Reply to: Message 34 by Adminnemooseus
06-20-2008 2:10 AM


Re: References from message 1 etc. - A review
That's the stuff. I read Arthur Hunt's article before I started posting on this thread, as well as the abstracts.

There's no evidence for I.D. in there, and Axe's "big number" in the 2004 paper was in a range already established. Do you think it's worth opening a topic just to be cruel to randman? Maybe.;)


This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by Adminnemooseus, posted 06-20-2008 2:10 AM Adminnemooseus has not yet responded

  
Prev12
3
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019