John Jones wrote:While you are busy firing arrows at shadows of creationists and communists the stockade creaks and teeters beneath you.
An inapt and tedious metaphor, charged with the hyperbole of a desparate attempt to make oneself seem master of a situation--which situation exists only in said individual's mind.
Quote:How does one make an electrophoreisis unit omit sequences? You are mistaken if you think I am not a scientist. You are also mistaken if you think I can't tell the difference between technical irrelevancies and philosophy of theory. In fact, you are all way out of your depth with me, and I am not expecting much in the way of intelligent argument. If you want to discuss evolution theory with me you had best get your acts together. In the meantime, stick with this observation: 'DNA is a chemical'. Then think about it. It's a chemical.
You've spent a lot of time boasting about your scientific knowledge, but you've offered no credentials, and none of what you've written in the least suggests that you have a solid foundation in any science. Perhaps what you say is true, but there is absolutely no reason to assume as much from anything you've written.
Quote:I have told my mate what was said about Lampeter University. He told his mates. They aren't very happy about it.
Who gives a rat's ass . . . you cited Lampeter, i went out and researched the name and came up with the University of Wales, Lampeter, and then further delved into the possibilities that said university might have solid credentials as a research institution with a sound reputation in genetic research. So far, all i've found is Mr. Messer, with a doctorate in
Theology, writing on the religious implications of genetics. Not a shred of evidence online that UW, Lampeter can be considered a genetics research institute. If that browns off your mates, tough luck. If you have any names, and titles of papers which have been peer-reviewed and published, provide them, and you can blow all objections out of the water. Until such time, your vague assertions are all anyone has to go on, and so far it reeks of manure.
In your silly, silly thread entitled "Superstition," this is your opening post:
John Jones wrote:Only the scientists believe in superstition. It is an idea they have invented for themselves. Nobody else gives it any credence.
You expect to be taken seriously when you contend that "You are mistaken if you think I am not a scientist," despite drek such as that quoted above. Tell your mates to call somebody who cares whether or not they are happy.
