Don't know if you noticed, but poster "quintillus" is listed as "new"... and has over 100 posts! Overwhelming Evidence indeed. Overwhelming evidence that ID is dead.
"Argument from Technobabble
If you want a laugh, go see today's update on "The Panda's Thumb" called Behe vs the Sea Squirt, the best place to see that rare and endangered species the red-faced angry evolutionist blogger. Today's theme is an attempt to discredit Michael Behe's proven facts that the mamalian clotting sequence is Irreducably Complex.
When I read their pathetic attempt at a rebuttal I almost fell off my chair with laughter. Consider the following paragraph, which is unfortunately typical of the pompous and heavy handed style of the Panda's Thumb site:
"Activated Factor VII and Factor X both activate PAR2 [5,7] . This receptor is also activated by trypsin released by damaged epithelial cells, and other serine proteases released from mast cells and white blood cells during injury or inflammation [8]. Activated Factor X and thrombin (and trypsin) turn on PAR1, which amongst other things, activates neutrophils and causes aggregation of platelets [5,7,8]. In protovertebrates without a clotting system, wounds are plugged with haemocytes, primordial versions of the white blood cells and platelets that are activated by thrombin and trypsin. Trypisn or trypsin-like enzymes leaking from damaged cells attracting haemocytes to plug a wound would be the start of a protoclotting system."
I'm sure I do not have to dignify this obviously absurd technobabble with a rebuttal. Anybody with the most basic qualification in biology can see that they are making up this zany nonsense as they go along.
I do wonder where they are getting their so-called facts? Has anybody been watching too much Star-Trek recently?
One of the great things about Intelligent Design is that it simplifies things. Unlike the theory of evolution it passes the test of Occam's razor the universally true scentific axiom that given a choice between a complex theory and a simple one, the simple one has the greatest probability of being right. It's another way of saying that tall-tales and just-so stories are usually false. ID is so simple that even people who are un-trained in biological sciences can make great and astounding progress. What could be a greater indicator of it's truth than that?"
Occam's razor is a "universally true scientific axiom"? Even if ID were parsimonious (it isn't), the razor is still not a means of proof. Actual data are a means of proof, and ID has none.
Don't know if you noticed, but poster "quintillus" is listed as "new"... and has over 100 posts! Overwhelming Evidence indeed. Overwhelming evidence that ID is dead.
My favourite Quintillus post from there.
"Argument from Technobabble
If you want a laugh, go see today's update on "The Panda's Thumb" called Behe vs the Sea Squirt, the best place to see that rare and endangered species the red-faced angry evolutionist blogger. Today's theme is an attempt to discredit Michael Behe's proven facts that the mamalian clotting sequence is Irreducably Complex.
When I read their pathetic attempt at a rebuttal I almost fell off my chair with laughter. Consider the following paragraph, which is unfortunately typical of the pompous and heavy handed style of the Panda's Thumb site:
"Activated Factor VII and Factor X both activate PAR2 [5,7] . This receptor is also activated by trypsin released by damaged epithelial cells, and other serine proteases released from mast cells and white blood cells during injury or inflammation [8]. Activated Factor X and thrombin (and trypsin) turn on PAR1, which amongst other things, activates neutrophils and causes aggregation of platelets [5,7,8]. In protovertebrates without a clotting system, wounds are plugged with haemocytes, primordial versions of the white blood cells and platelets that are activated by thrombin and trypsin. Trypisn or trypsin-like enzymes leaking from damaged cells attracting haemocytes to plug a wound would be the start of a protoclotting system."
I'm sure I do not have to dignify this obviously absurd technobabble with a rebuttal. Anybody with the most basic qualification in biology can see that they are making up this zany nonsense as they go along.
I do wonder where they are getting their so-called facts? Has anybody been watching too much Star-Trek recently?
One of the great things about Intelligent Design is that it simplifies things. Unlike the theory of evolution it passes the test of Occam's razor the universally true scentific axiom that given a choice between a complex theory and a simple one, the simple one has the greatest probability of being right. It's another way of saying that tall-tales and just-so stories are usually false. ID is so simple that even people who are un-trained in biological sciences can make great and astounding progress. What could be a greater indicator of it's truth than that?"
Occam's razor is a "universally true scientific axiom"? Even if ID were parsimonious (it isn't), the razor is still not a means of proof. Actual data are a means of proof, and ID has none.
Quintillus' post demonstrates a "universally true" trait of IDiots. They are Irremediably Simplistic.