Re: The philosophical Turkey: The difference between verification and

On Dec 16, 12:15 am, Seanpit <seanpitnos...@naturalselection.
0catch.com> wrote:
On Dec 15, 10:27 am, richardalanforr...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:

On Dec 15, 5:23 pm, Seanpit <seanpitnos...@naturalselection.

0catch.com> wrote:
Present an actual system that exists or has existed without having
first been taken from a fully formed flagellar system and show that it
could be linked up with any other system to form a united novel system
with flagellar motility function with just one or two mutational
steps.

Then show where this is wrong:http://www.talkdesign.org/faqs/flagellum.html

This is in direct response to Matzke's essay on the flagellum:

http://www.detectingdesign.com/flagellum.html

By the way, nowhere in Matzke's essay does he detail the actual number
of residue changes needed to get from one one of his proposed steps to
the next.

He does, however, go into great detail about the mutations required.

He just doesn't mention or get into this anywhere in his
entire essay. He simply asserts that the needed changes are few, but
does provide any actual molecular detail in this regard

This is an outright falsehood.

nor any
statistical analysis or predictions about how many random mutations
would likely be needed to cross between any of his suggested
steppingstones.

He details the mutations requires and the sites at which they are most
likely to have occured, and presents evidence to support his
conclusions.

I know that you won't because you never do.

I've responded directly to Matzke several times in this forum and my
response to his essay has been on my website for almost two years.

And your response does not address any the evidence. It merely insist
that unless we interpret evolutionary processes within your
deliberately non-working model of evolution - i.e. one of an adaptive
landscape of isolated islands of function - it must be wrong.


You testiculate* and
insist that everyone else is wrong and you are right, but if asked to
put your stupid "theory" to the test by writing it up and submitting
it to an academic journal, you bluster and evade, snip the relevant
parts from the post you are responding to and run away.

I've responded in detail to every one of your arguments at some point.

Nol you haven't, Sean. You're lying again. You snip most of my posts
when the going gets tough, and then pretend that you have addressed
the points i have raised.


You just continually post the very same comments over and over again
as if I never responded.

You don't.
For example, you have not told us who you think *is* capable of
judging the validity of your "theory" in spite of the fact that I have
asked the question several times.


Keep this up and even the creationists who you have managed to fool so
far might start to realise that you are just a big girl's blouse, all
mouth an no trousers.

Go for it, Sean. Try for a first: be so blatantly dishonest that even
the *creationists* realise what you are doing!

RF

*testiculate - "wave hands and talk bollocks"

Where are your own arguments beyond assertions from authority alone?

Another falsehood, Sean.
I have never made *any* argument from authority.

Talk about smoke and mirrors and endless bluster! You present
references without any relevant quotes all the time.

If I am providing the references, why should I need to present
"relevant quote"?
Are you incapable of reading for comprehension?

You are a
reference miner, which is worse than a quote miner.

Well, it seems that all scientists are "reference miners" in that
case. All the scientific papers I have ever read have a list of
references at the end.

Your references
do not come remotely close to supporting what you assert.

Oh, please! This from someone who produces references which he doesn't
understand, and claims that they support a model which flatly
contradicts the conclusions of the authors and which does not present
data at a scale of resolution at which such support could be seen!

If you
think otherwise, please do present a relevant quote along with your
reference next time that at least appears to support your assertions.

Why should I need to present "relevant quotes"?
Quotations can easily be used out of context to give the impression
that the authors hold different views and have formed conclusions
other than those they have. That's what creationists do all the time.
Scientific papers rarely contain direct quotes.


Sean Pitmanwww.DetectingDesign.com

RF

.

Relevant Pages

  • RE: Using Wildcards in the CONTAINS Predicate
    ... Microsoft Online Community Support ... The MSDN Managed Newsgroup support offering is for non-urgent issues ... where an initial response from the community or a Microsoft Support ... Yes I understand that double quotes gives me the results I am looking ...
    (microsoft.public.sharepoint.portalserver.development)
  • Re: Why so much cross-posting?
    ... Note what that says Chris: NOT ONE of them supports your ... SO a live person who was there (and there are plenty of references to ... have given no quotes that support what you have claimed, ...
    (alt.photography)
  • Re: Localized Resource dll
    ... I guess that you must have some better references for this issue. ... Microsoft Online Community Support ... where an initial response from the community or a Microsoft Support ...
    (microsoft.public.vc.mfc)
  • Re: McCain Taps Palin
    ... Never mind. ... But you still won't produce the actual quotes that support your ... this was in response to a conversation you were having with ...
    (rec.sport.golf)