AE BB DB Explorer


Action:
Author:
Search Terms (separate with commas, no spaces):


form_srcid: HPLC_Sean

form_srcid: HPLC_Sean

form_cmd: view_author

Your IP address is 184.73.87.85

View Author detected.

view author posts with search matches:

Retrieve source record and display it.

form_author:

form_srcid: HPLC_Sean

q: SELECT AUTHOR, MEMBER_NAME, IP_ADDR, POST_DATE, TOPIC_ID, t1.FORUM_ID, POST, POST_ID, FORUM_VIEW_THREADS from ib_forum_posts AS t1 LEFT JOIN (ib_member_profiles AS t2, ib_forum_info AS t3) ON (t1.forum_id = t3.forum_id AND t1.author = t2.member_id) WHERE MEMBER_NAME like 'HPLC_Sean%' and forum_view_threads LIKE '*' ORDER BY POST_DATE ASC

DB_err:

DB_result: Resource id #4

Date: 2005/04/22 15:37:20, Link
Author: HPLC_Sean
Slightly off topic, but Mr. Wagner opened the door by providing links to his updated website (thanks!;)). When a scientist offers a suspect theory, it is often helpful to look at his other publications for consistency in reasoning and here we have some examples of Mr. Wagner's logic (very consistent by the way):
On guns:
Quote
But a gun is nothing more than a tool and if properly used, causes no harm. It is no different from an ax, or a brick, or a can of gasoline...Timothy McVeigh killed 168 people with fuel oil and fertilizer. Should they be banned?

So guns are just like axes, bricks and gasoline? Why didn't anyone tell me!
On recycling:
Quote
What about aluminum cans and glass? We have enough of this stuff to last for centuries. Just bury it and forget it. You say it doesn't decompose or degrade? So what? Neither does rock! The earth is covered with a quadrazillion tons of broken rock just lying around forever. Not hurting anyone. So what if a few glass bottles and cans are added to the pile.

Cans and bottles are just like rocks... That's rich! Oh, and cells are like computers! Too funny!
On exercise:
Quote
In fact, exercise could very well kill you. There is no evidence that exercise of any kind can decrease mortality and allow you to live longer. In fact, if you suffer from arteriosclerosis, cardio- vascular disease or hypertension, strenuous exercise could well prove fatal.

Has someone notified the New England Journal of Medicine?

The overriding pattern that emerges in Mr. Wagner's logic is clearly the misuse of simile. He has a clever analogy for everything! Mr. Wagner sees the world in similes taken literally to a ridiculous extent.
I applaud your courage Mr. Wagner. You express yourself well in writing and in great volume. By publishing this website, you have provided anyone with the inclination a window into your irrational thought processes and your ability to make analogous connections where none exist! You are welcome to them, Mr. Wagner. Just don't pollute my kid's mind with your logic.

Date: 2005/05/03 15:10:19, Link
Author: HPLC_Sean
{Chuckle, chuckle} This post has given me such a good laugh!
Teleologist is a blathering ignoramus incapable of forming an argument. Evolution is quite safe from the likes of him (or her). ID Creationists should be worried though.
Disclaimer: No American black voters were harmed in the posting of this thread.

Date: 2005/05/05 10:49:21, Link
Author: HPLC_Sean
You know, Mr. Wagner, I'm thrilled that you are fascinated by molecular motors. I am too, and that's why I studied science. Unfortunately, you rush down the divine design path as if it is the only path you see. In your zeal to exalt God out of sheer amazement at the ingenuity of chemotaxis and flagellar rotation you have forgotten (or ignored) that well understood laws of nature exist. You favor the notion that God designed these processes without evidence! The Bible doesn't talk about flagella either! So where does this conclusion come from?

Your belief in religion surely plays a major part in your conclusions and I applaud you for it. I suspect you see reason to exalt God for just about any natural process. Hey, if your belief in God causes you to see Him everywhere then you are surely satisfied with this and you are of course welcome to it.
Just don't teach it in science class; teach it in religion class.

Date: 2005/07/06 14:09:49, Link
Author: HPLC_Sean
This is classic Dembski narcissism.
Demb likes this cartoon because it pits him singlehanded against the evil Darwinist empire. To him, the future of the world rests in his hands.
His desire to see an image of him wrestling Darwin is yet another indication of Demb's love for himself. The sad fact is that if Demb ever debated Darwin, the image would depict Darwin as the piledriver and Demb as the piledrivee.

Date: 2005/09/16 08:56:14, Link
Author: HPLC_Sean
evopeach:
Your hilarious essay proves your ignorance beyond a shadow of a doubt and can easily be utterly reduced to ruins by explaining some VERY basic biology and chemistry.

Indeed, O, N, C and H (as well as Ca, Mg, S, P, K) are essential elements for life, but the cell NEVER functions using single atoms, nor does the cell EVER build molecules from single atoms. The cell ALWAYS starts with molecules. Therefore to reduce cell function to, as you say, "the atomistic level" is utterly meaningless.

You also have no notion of what a chemical bond is and how a chemical bond between two or more atoms gives the resulting molecule totally new chemical and physical properties. For example: Four C atoms and ten H atoms can be bonded in several ways including the n-butane molecule and the 2-methylpropane molecule. They contain the same number of C and H atoms and yet have drastically different chemical properties. So once again, your attempt to reduce cell function to "the atomistic level" is utterly meaningless.

Your definition of C, N, H, and O as being "subsystems" is laughable. How can an element be a subsystem if it is an element? You've reduced organic molecules like DNA, RNA and proteins having definite mass, structure and property to a "collection of atoms" when in fact the properties of these molecules, are galaxies away from the properties of the individual atoms they are made up of.

You speak of complexity and then meaninglessly reduce life to "a collection of atoms" for the purposes of your logical trapeze act. How obtuse.

Date: 2005/10/04 10:36:59, Link
Author: HPLC_Sean
evopeach,
It is really fascinating to hear you spew about emotional diatribes and personal attacks when you say something as two-faced as this:

Quote
"It amazes me that people believe a degree in paleontology (bone polishers), geology (rock hounds) and biology actuall belief themselves in some way to be intellectually superior to other technical discliplines. I took one course in Biology every engineer did it was the easiest way to get some grade points. I would have taken another one but it was always filled up with football players and other jocks trying to do the same."


No one here is attempting to impose their mental superiority on you; that's your own inferiority complex kicking in. Most of us are compassionate people looking to understand what you're trying to say or help you clear up your confusion. Really, that's all we're trying to do for you, evopeach, but all you want to do is insult people, cheaply I might add.
BTW: Please let me know which bridges you've helped build or which airplanes you've helped design because I want to stay far far away from them. THAT was an insult.

Date: 2005/10/17 05:44:56, Link
Author: HPLC_Sean
This thread seems to be ascribing a heirarchy of ways to describe scientific thoughts and conventions. The fact is that there is no concrete heirarchy and there should be none.
Hypotheses are specific testable statements and generally predate theories but are not inferior to them necessarily. Examples include: The Riemann Hypothesis (mathematics) has been tested to 1.5 million prime numbers but is still called a hypothesis; Avogadro's Hypothesis (chemistry) led eventually to Avogadro's Number but it is still called a hypothesis; The One Gene-One Enzyme (or Polypeptide) Hypothesis has been postulated and holds for those genes we have studied since 1941.
Theories are explanations of the general principles of phenomena with considerable evidence to support it. Examples include: The Theory of Evolution (biology), Gravity Theory (physics), Theory of Special Relativity (physics); Probability Theory (mathematics), Game Theory (economics).
Laws are mathematical definitions or mathematically definable phenomena. Examples include: The Laws of Thermodynamics (1st, 2nd, 3rd); Newton's Three Laws of Motion; The Ideal Gas Law. Evolution doesn't fit because it isn't primarily describable as an equation and is not tested mathematically.
Furthermore, there are PRINCIPLES. I don't know what the difference between a principle and a theory is but there are numerous examples: The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle (particle physics); Bernoulli's Principle (fluid behavior); The Superposition Principle (wave physics); LeChatelier's Principle of Equilibrium (solution chemistry).

I am very dubious about ascribing a heirarchy to the various ways of describing explanations for observable phenomena. To me, they're all equal and deserve equal respect.

Date: 2005/10/17 08:16:59, Link
Author: HPLC_Sean
Regarding your first paragraph:
No one is immune to bias. You are living proof of that; your religious beliefs, a factor that is irrelevant to the data presented, clearly color your arguments against evolution. Of course, you are free to draw the conclusions you wish from the papers you've read (understood?), and I'm free to disagree with you. One need not be a Christian or a follower of any other religion to come to different conclusions.
-- Just don't teach your Christian-biased conclusions on science to my children in science class; they want to learn science, not Christianity.--
You've specifically accused peer-reviewed authors of bias by assuming "evolution over Christianity". Can you demonstrate to us where that bias is represented in the data?

Regarding your second paragraph:
ID is not a theory as it does not explain any phenomenon to any testable extent. At very best, it is a critique of the Theory of Evolution hopelessly doped with Christian bias (see above). Contrary to the first sentence, ID does not provide an empiric basis for anything. In order for something to be empirical it must be based on experience, trial and error, or experiment; it must be derived from the senses and not by logical deduction. ID proponents don't do experiments and have no empirically derived data.

Regarding transfer of genes from one organism to another by eating them:
First of all, parsimonious means scanty or meager (adj.: too careful with money or assets). You might want to revise your wording before submitting your data to Science or Nature.
Secondly, your hypothesis is laughable. You've grossly misunderstood and oversimplified the biochemical mechanisms of horizontal gene transfer in the most infantile way. By your hypothesis, I should have corn genes, celery genes, carrot genes, rice genes, wheat genes, yeast genes, and genetic material from MANY other organisms incorporated into my own which is not the case. You did know that grains, yeast and vegetables have DNA didn't you?

BTW: If you're an ID parody character, bravo. You've succeeded in entertaining me. I'll keep reading your posts for their entertainment value.

Date: 2005/10/18 09:28:55, Link
Author: HPLC_Sean
evopeach:
You seem to have concocted all of the reasons you need for rejecting ToE, but you've proposed nothing to fill the void.
What's your theory?
If everything ToE has come up with is bunk, what do you say the mechanism for our existence is?
Surely you have an explanation for how we got here.

Date: 2005/10/18 10:45:35, Link
Author: HPLC_Sean
evopeach:
You've transformed a potentially interesting discussion  into another dishonest bitching session. You're not interested in conversation. You're not interested in forming or preaching a legitimate alternative to ToE. You just want attention.
You've posted over 200 messages since July. TWO HUNDRED MESSAGES in about 100 days. Bored much?  Starved for attention are we? In two hundred posts, you've succeeded in saying nothing. You've convinced no one that your arguments have any merit at all. You're on record slandering people you don't know and misrepresenting well established principles to further your religious convictions. You pass yourself off as well-read, but the meat of your arguments and your comprehension of the issues is on par with that of grade school children.
What religion do you belong to again? It can't be Christianity. The devout Christians I know aren't slanderous, proud to sinful levels, or conceited. They're humble, curious, and respectful. I want to stay as far from you people as I can. Please tell me: What religion do you belong to again? Are you people all this hostile?

You strike me as a very peculiar person:
You clearly have an inferiority complex with regard to mainstream intellectuals. You believe you're just as smart as them, but you're trapped in your doctrine and therefore can't accept mainstream science without becoming internally conflicted. How tragic.
You find comfort in believing that there is a conspiracy of mainstream scientists that are keeping your doctrine from being accepted as "truth". If only mainstream science would stop censoring, blackmailing, extorting and persecuting (your words) your doctrine, your intellect could finally shine. That's paranoia.
You are a very frustrated person. You feel the need to respond to every attack of your arguments with unconstructive slander as if it is personal. I don't know why.
You have been deluded into believing that mainstream science is on the defensive, that teaching ToE to budding scientists is on its way to extinction and that teaching ID as science is probable in your lifetime. You have been deluded into believing that there are serious fallacies with ToE when in fact there are only legitimate questions that need answering by real scientists.
You say you're an engineer, but you can't even build an argument! If mainstream science were to hold your doctrine to the same level skepticism as your ilk hold ToE your missionaries would abandon their flock for the missionary position. Your double standard shines like the beacon your intellect isn't.
Do everyone a favor and stop posting your garbage so that we can have a nice discussion.

Date: 2005/10/19 10:50:41, Link
Author: HPLC_Sean
G-o-Paley said:
Quote
My hypothesis is much more plausible than the orginal one proposed by Mrs. Sagan.

Lynn Margulis' (Mrs. Sagan) work isn't being debated here. Her work was rigorously researched, it proposed biochemical mechanisms, and was peer-reviewed. Her work was fecund and led to multiple new branches of research. Comparing your hypothesis to hers by invoking a nonsensical and tangential notion like CSI as your main propellant is reputation suicide. You do know that C.S.I. is B.U.N.K. don't you?
Have you ever heard of DNAse? RNAse? Proteases? These enzymes are found in many cell types in many organisms and serve specifically to digest and destroy foreign genetic material. Many eukaryotic cells have a nucleus that protects the native genetic material from foreign genetic material and nuclear pore receptors are VERY selective about what goes in and out of the precious karyon. Prokaryotes don't have nuclei so their genetic material is easily altered by compatible foreign genetic material. That's why cloning is easy with bacteria and very difficult with eukaryotes.
All you have is CSI to back up your hypothesis? Gee... All biochemists have is 50 years of studying DNA recombination. If I could buy your hypothesis for $50 or Lynn Margulis' for $50,000, I'd save my money for hers.

Oh, this one is great...
Quote
How stupid do you have to be to put your faith and trust in a man everybody recognizes is dead?

Do you have faith in Jesus? Didn't he die (for your sins)?
Repent G-o-Paley...
The only person being nihilistically skeptical here is you and your creationist fundamentalists. I mean, how much data do you need before you're convinced? On the flip side, what if I needed the same kind of proof to believe in God? Wouldn't you be up a creek?

Quote
Why should Darwinian-based conclusions be preferred over Christian-based ones.

Becuase one is SCIENCE and the other is FAITH. The former required independently and repeatedly verified data, the latter requires a nice story and a good story-teller. The former has led to medical advances that allow you to live twice as long as your ancestors did a mere 100 years ago and the latter has caused more than a few wars and misery for 2000 years. I can go on...
Ah! Theologians! A pillar of unbiased research! It takes a Christian theologian to determine that knowledge is dependant on Christianity. Isn't pride a deadly sin? 'Cause that's as proud as it gets...

Date: 2005/10/20 04:34:48, Link
Author: HPLC_Sean
I've been snared by parody-artists as you just were, rawk. I once fired off a hot response to an Evo proponent that parodied creationist-talk in a post.

 

 

 

=====