pangloss

And yet, DNAuniuon does not even have an undergraduate biology education. Imagine the irony...

He has a hammer (OOL). And those with only a hammer try to turn everything into a nail.

pangloss

Angered? Hardly. More like what I feel about that one fat hairy fly that is keeps buzzing around my head in the garage.

pangloss

I see this attitude all the time in these debates, almost always from the creation/ID proponant. If your knowledge of biology is so absent, how, pray tell, do you KNOW that:

DNAunion's is 'quite high'

When he makes a valid point


When his points are refuted?


Bertvan and mturner are also prime examples of this. mturner boasts of not being a scientist, yet proudly pronounces them wrong at the drop of a hat, only to ignore/deny that HE is wrong about anything scientific.

Pseudocertainty, I believe it is called.

tronvillain

leonarde: You held up that thread as an example of DNAunion not being refuted. I pointed out that there it does not really contain much to refute. You claim that it does. I ask you to be more specific. Apparently unable to be more specific, you shift from that thread to all of DNAunions posts.

Now, as pangloss points out, DNAunion essentially only argues about the origins of life.

leonarde

Pangloss, I know you are hostile to Bertvan but she is quite modest in everything she says at ARN: she
makes no great pretense at relevant specialized knowledge.
Mturner is a philosopher with a wide range of interests. He is a valuabe asset to ARN (and he
was one here too). A bit of a hot-head (as am even
I on occasion).
Are you REALLY trying to claim that DNA's knowledge of biology/science is lower than that of
an undergraduate with a science major?
If so, then I think your personal conflict with him is clouding your judgement.
Cheers! (buzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz)

leonarde

Tronvillain,
I was trying to go from a very vague, unprovable
claim to something more concrete.
But if you don't believe me, then go to ARN's archives (which go back 2 years). He has hundreds,
if not thousands of posts, most of them are about
biology and/or science. If you do, you will find
that his knowledge is WAY way above even solid
undergraduate majors in science.
I have a 20ish friend who is in university and she knows more than me in most regards because she
has been into science since childhood. Dna's knowledge is way way above hers. THAT is the way
I gauge such thing (and this young lady is an A
student with 3 majors one of them neuroscience).
It is cut and dried. Only partisanship is making
an argument of this.
Cheers!

Principia

Indeed. "Go ARN GO! Look at the archives. Such a shining example of what we are capable of."

Got to love cheerleading troll(e)s.

Hey, I can make the same type of argument too. I know undergraduates that know well in excess of DNAunion, are straight A students, plan a career in biomedical research, *and* attend one of the most prestigious institutions in the world. And I actually have a degree in biology. What do them apples say about DNAunion?

SC

[ April 22, 2002: Message edited by: Scientiae ]</p>

leonarde

I rest my case.

tronvillain

I was never attempting to defend the claim "DNAUnion's arguments could be refuted by an undergraduate biology student." What I was concerned with was your claims about a specific thread.

leonarde

DNA talks quite a bit about HIS position on evolution in that thread. Whether YOU or anyone else thinks the stuff he said "needs to be refuted" depends primarily on whether you agree with his position(s). Evidently you do.....