Re: Martin Vs Spin. (No outside help Plz)
- From: martin <usenet@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 30 Aug 2009 16:52:46 +0100
spintronic wrote:
On 30 Aug, 15:45, martin <use...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:spintronic wrote:
I claimed the programme was wrong from the get go.So go and argue with *IT* I don't give a damn
*IT* claimed *all* life came from 1 cell. I disagreed.
*It* isn't here, but you seem to be a "self proclaimed" ambassador for
such dribble.
Nope, all I did was post a reference that I thought some people might be interested in. I didn't say the program was accurate, I didn't say I agreed with anything or any views put forward in the program. The only view I expressed about the programme was that I found it "interesting"
Again, I don't give a damn about what you think of the programme. You want to argue about something in it go argue with Dr. Rutherford. The ONLY thing you can argue with me about was whether or not it was legitimate for me to have found it "interesting" or not because it's the only view I stated.
Here is what I wrote again. With commentary this time.
---------
"I've finally caught up with a short BBC series I've not seen posted here.
- factual comment, nothing to argue about
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00m5w92
- factual comment, nothing to argue about
Dr. Adam Rutherford editor on Nature takes a walk through the discovery of The Cell through Evolution and in the final episode around research laboratories investigating genetic splicing, making diesel with modified bacteria, and finally totally synthetic lifeforms.
- factual observation of what I understood about the programme. Was I wrong? I'm happy to be proven wrong if you can show me where I misunderstood something I was watching.
Interesting visit to Miller's lab where we meet a former student of his [Miller's] (now professor) who used a modern spectrum analyser on Miller's original results and found more like 50 amino acids rather than just the five Miller detected and published, and a more up-to-date look at research into abiogenesis.
- I found it interesting, you might not. I don't really think a debate about what I find interesting would be worth while.
- The rest were comments about the content of the programme and I believe are correct comments. Again I'm willing to be put right if I misunderstood anything
Well worth a look if you have iPlayer or (I suppose) some kind of p-p stuff."
- Well it seems we have something to debate afterall. Whether it's worth a look or not. I think I'll stand by my opinion that it was. If you don't think so, don't watch it. Equally I think old episodes of Thunderbirds are worth a look, but I wouldn't post that here, I'd save it for alt.old.tv
And so I am picking on you!
I still don't see why. I'm happy to debate about whether or not I found it interesting. Is it worth it?
That's as vague as all your posts.
Are you sure you majored in communication?
I didn't say that I majored in communication. You just made that up. Just like you made it up that I was an advocate for the content of the programme.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Martin Vs Spin. (No outside help Plz)
- From: spintronic
- Re: Martin Vs Spin. (No outside help Plz)
- References:
- Martin Vs Spin. (No outside help Plz)
- From: spintronic
- Re: Martin Vs Spin. (No outside help Plz)
- From: Frank J
- Re: Martin Vs Spin. (No outside help Plz)
- From: martin
- Re: Martin Vs Spin. (No outside help Plz)
- From: spintronic
- Re: Martin Vs Spin. (No outside help Plz)
- From: martin
- Re: Martin Vs Spin. (No outside help Plz)
- From: spintronic
- Martin Vs Spin. (No outside help Plz)
- Prev by Date: Re: Martin Vs Spin. (No outside help Plz)
- Next by Date: Re: Objective Anti-Intellectualism
- Previous by thread: Re: Martin Vs Spin. (No outside help Plz)
- Next by thread: Re: Martin Vs Spin. (No outside help Plz)
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading