RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (21) < ... 9 10 11 12 13 [14] 15 16 17 18 19 ... >   
  Topic: Challenge to Evolutionists< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 19 2007,16:55   

Quote (supersport @ Sep. 19 2007,16:54)
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Sep. 19 2007,16:52)
Quote (supersport @ Sep. 19 2007,16:39)
http://s17.photobucket.com/albums/b96/Supersport22/

hey you brought it up.

Lovely. So you're not a redneck landlord. Yay.

You only answered half the question.

oh, but I am....I use both those terms quite loosely though.

Lovely. But you only answered half the question.

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
skeptic



Posts: 1163
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 19 2007,17:11   

Now wait a minute, first the mind is undefinable and then genetic information is just the physical manifestation of the mind?  Let's settle on something.  If we're going to apply scientific investigation then we must define it or else leave it as a meta-physical concept and move on to what we can define.  Let's go in one direction but not both.

  
supersport



Posts: 158
Joined: Aug. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 19 2007,17:40   

Quote (skeptic @ Sep. 19 2007,17:11)
Now wait a minute, first the mind is undefinable and then genetic information is just the physical manifestation of the mind?  Let's settle on something.  If we're going to apply scientific investigation then we must define it or else leave it as a meta-physical concept and move on to what we can define.  Let's go in one direction but not both.

genes aren't definable either!

http://www.junkdna.com/#genes_move_over

"Genes, move over. Ever since the early 1900s, biologists have thought about heredity primarily in terms of genes. Today, they often view genes as compact, information-laden gems hidden among billions of bases of junk DNA. But genes, it turns out, are neither compact nor uniquely important. According to a painstaking new analysis of 1% of the human genome, genes can be sprawling, with far-flung protein-coding and regulatory regions that overlap with other genes... [One can not help thinking about replacing the concept with FractoGene... - AJP]

Given the traditional gene-centric perspective, that finding "is going to be very disturbing to some people," says John Greally, a molecular biologist at Albert Einstein College of Medicine in New York City. On the other hand, says Francis Collins, director of the National Human Genome Research Institute (NHGRI) in Bethesda, Maryland, "we're beginning to understand the ground rules by which the genome functions."... [Indeed, alongside the $100 M to continue ENCODE, time is to establish, like the "Theoretical Neuroscience Program" with Neural Networks breaking through by the 1980's an "NIH PostGenetics Study Program" to head for algorithmic "ground rules" for genome functions - AJP]

When Alexandre Reymond, a medical geneticist at the University of Lausanne, Switzerland, and his colleagues took a close look at the 400 protein-coding genes contained in ENCODE's target DNA, they found additional exons--the regions that code for amino acids--for more than 80%. Many of these newfound exons were located thousands of bases away from the gene's previously known exons, sometimes hidden in another gene. Moreover, some mRNAs were derived from exons belonging to two genes, a finding, says Reymond, that "underscores that we have still not truly answered the question, 'What is a gene?' " In addition, further extending and blurring gene boundaries, ENCODE uncovered a slew of novel "start sites" for genes--the DNA sequences where transcription begins--many located hundreds of thousands of bases away from the known start sites.


[Those who thought the "ENCODE" only blew away "Junk DNA" see now that not only the "antithesis" was incorrect, but the "Gene" thesis was defective, too. Some of us have put forward "Synthesis" - and a select few in algorithmic, i.e. "software enabling" manner. Synthetic Biology and Protein-based Nanotechnology will not make it without proper "software design" ... - comment by Pellionisz, 22nd of June, 2007]"

  
Reciprocating Bill



Posts: 4265
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 19 2007,18:21   

In the event that "delusional" and "schizotypal" seemed a bit strong, here is supersport over at Richarddawkins.net:
 
Quote
And so here’s my hypothesis…the following is very important to realize, my friend. I submit that the scientific community is full of individuals who have descended from parents who have “bad seeds” in their reproductive organs. And this group of individuals is composed mostly of habitual liars..which is what lead them to science to begin with...because science is merely an attempt to define the world according to the lie that God was not involved.……Thus, scientistst are no different than lawyers, criminals, politicians, used car salesmen, petty theives, cat burglers, evolutionary fiction writers and other people who make a living by lying. But here’s the thing…..it’s not so much that they INTEND to lie….in fact, I believe it comes so naturally that many might not even realize they’re doing it!

Someone makes the obvious comment:
 
Quote
Sport, I am not a psychiatrist, but I recommend you seek one out. Your post concerns me in that it seems to contain many paranoid, delusional and narcissistic elements. Could just be my imagination, of course.

Supe replies:
 
Quote
hey, either I'm a genius or I need to be admitted to a mental institution. There can be no middle ground.

I'm not seeing the genius thing here.

--------------
Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be.

"The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you."
- David Foster Wallace

"Here’s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."
- Barry Arrington

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 19 2007,18:50   

Quote

hey, either I'm a genius or I need to be admitted to a mental institution. There can be no middle ground.


Sure there can. Maybe you're just bullshitting us. That's 'middle ground'.

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
ofro



Posts: 19
Joined: Jan. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 19 2007,19:46   

Quote (supersport @ Sep. 19 2007,13:09)
Therefore, if a population of fleas all experience the same environmental cue (predators in this case) then the whole population will emerge with the same trait...(new spines in this case).   Do you thus agree that this could very well give the illusion of evolution if the experiment was not done in a controlled way?....if scientists had merely observed a population of fleas one year, and then came back a few years later only to notice that the spines had grown, would it not be easy to blindly attribute this change to RMNS?  Of course!  And that's exactly what has happened to the peppered moth, Darwin's finches and Dr. GH's lizards.  Go ahead, look up those types of lizard Dr. GH was talking about and you'll find that natural selection was actually not the reason they changed -- phenotypic plasticity was.  

What is the mechanism here?  I don't know -- you tell me...how can you put a "mechanism" on the mind?  The mind is not definable and is certainly not a machine.  The mind is not a material substance but a mental/spiritual process.
   
I am a bit confused about what you mean by the mind influencing a phenotypic change.  I always thought that "mind" was associated with animals possessing a rather complex nervous system.  Now you are talking about fleas.

Do fleas have a mind?  Or perhaps bacteria?  At which point in evolution do evolving species acquire a mind?

  
supersport



Posts: 158
Joined: Aug. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 19 2007,21:14   

Quote (ofro @ Sep. 19 2007,19:46)
Quote (supersport @ Sep. 19 2007,13:09)
Therefore, if a population of fleas all experience the same environmental cue (predators in this case) then the whole population will emerge with the same trait...(new spines in this case).   Do you thus agree that this could very well give the illusion of evolution if the experiment was not done in a controlled way?....if scientists had merely observed a population of fleas one year, and then came back a few years later only to notice that the spines had grown, would it not be easy to blindly attribute this change to RMNS?  Of course!  And that's exactly what has happened to the peppered moth, Darwin's finches and Dr. GH's lizards.  Go ahead, look up those types of lizard Dr. GH was talking about and you'll find that natural selection was actually not the reason they changed -- phenotypic plasticity was.  

What is the mechanism here?  I don't know -- you tell me...how can you put a "mechanism" on the mind?  The mind is not definable and is certainly not a machine.  The mind is not a material substance but a mental/spiritual process.
   
I am a bit confused about what you mean by the mind influencing a phenotypic change.  I always thought that "mind" was associated with animals possessing a rather complex nervous system.  Now you are talking about fleas.

Do fleas have a mind?  Or perhaps bacteria?  At which point in evolution do evolving species acquire a mind?

all living species have varying degrees of minds and consciousness (yes, even plants) because they were created that way...there was no evolution of a mind.

And before you go off asking me what a mind is, you need to first tell me what it is that makes something alive....what is it that separates life from non-life.  When you show me what that is I'll show you what the mind is.

  
supersport



Posts: 158
Joined: Aug. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 19 2007,21:16   

I love this forum -- it digs up old pieces of wisdom that I have long-since forgotten.....this truly is like "This is your life!"

"And so here’s my hypothesis…the following is very important to realize, my friend. I submit that the scientific community is full of individuals who have descended from parents who have “bad seeds” in their reproductive organs. And this group of individuals is composed mostly of habitual liars..which is what lead them to science to begin with...because science is merely an attempt to define the world according to the lie that God was not involved.……Thus, scientistst are no different than lawyers, criminals, politicians, used car salesmen, petty theives, cat burglers, evolutionary fiction writers and other people who make a living by lying. But here’s the thing…..it’s not so much that they INTEND to lie….in fact, I believe it comes so naturally that many might not even realize they’re doing it!"

  
skeptic



Posts: 1163
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 19 2007,21:22   

sorry, you can't throw out a statement that the mind is the physical manifestation of the gene and then retreat to an undefinable gene and an undefinable mind shared by a living things, whatever living means.  You actually need to state what you mean when you say mind and living or else your statements have no meaning.  I could easily say that the genome is governed by porridge and you can't prove otherwise cause in reality genome and porridge (and govern, for that matter) have no meaning.

  
supersport



Posts: 158
Joined: Aug. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 19 2007,21:27   

Quote (skeptic @ Sep. 19 2007,21:22)
sorry, you can't throw out a statement that the mind is the physical manifestation of the gene and then retreat to an undefinable gene and an undefinable mind shared by a living things, whatever living means.  You actually need to state what you mean when you say mind and living or else your statements have no meaning.  I could easily say that the genome is governed by porridge and you can't prove otherwise cause in reality genome and porridge (and govern, for that matter) have no meaning.

Life, as well as the mind and consciousness are undefinable, unexplainable and unmeasurable -- all three are non-scientific.  

  
blipey



Posts: 2061
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 19 2007,22:27   

Excellent.  Can the powers that be close this thread now.  It has been firmly established that supersport is a class A jackass who is not interested in adding interesting or new information to this thread in any way.

--------------
But I get the trick question- there isn't any such thing as one molecule of water. -JoeG

And scientists rarely test theories. -Gary Gaulin

   
supersport



Posts: 158
Joined: Aug. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 19 2007,22:48   

Let me start out by saying that I do not believe in natural selection. I will explain why shortly. But the point of this post is to ask evolutionists what it would take for you not to believe in natural selection. What would qualify as disproof of the theory? Is there such a thing? Let's find out.

First of all, let's look at Charles Darwin's book title...here it is:

On the Origin of Species: By Means of Natural Selection


Ok. So Darwin, as do his followers, believes that animals evolve BECAUSE of natural selection. It's not enough to say that natural selection merely exists in nature, instead, we are to believe that natural selection is responsible for how animals change.

So for example, the peppered moth was said to have evolved because of their predators (birds) ate a particular color of moth (I think it was white) because it stood out on the tree trunks...and because the white moths were eliminated, this explained the why the dark moths came to dominate the population. It is also important to note that, according to the theory, both the white and dark moths were just random variations within the population.

Ok. So tell me, what is the possible disproof of the preceding scenario that natural selection caused this change in the population? It seems to me that if, instead of NS, the moths all changed individually, purposefully from white to black or if white moths gave birth to black offspring, then the idea that selection caused the change would be disproven.

So in this case, evolutionists would have to believe that if there were no birds or any other predators to consume the ill-adapted moths, that the population would have never evolved, right? The birds caused the evolution, not the moths themselves.

But now, even though science has uncovered a handful of mechanisms that allow for species to self-adapt to changing environments, evolutionists are STILL saying natural selection plays a role. But if the variation comes from within, it wouldn't matter if the birds ate the white moths or not, natural selection would not be the cause of change, which is the whole point of Charles Darwin's book. (Look again at his title, if necessary.)

And, with moths, that's exactly what's happening. See the following site:

 
http://ourfcs.friendscentral.org/moths/polyphenism1.html   (notice the bottom picture where the moths are able to adapt to changing background surfaces.)

So as someone who doesn't believe in the power of natural selection, what else am I supposed to do to convince you evolutionists that NS has no power to evolve a population other than to point out that individual animals have the ability to adapt themselves? And once you see that individuals are adaptive, how exactly is it that you can still claim that natural selection causes evolution?

Finally, to me, natural selection is something that would most certainly happen if individuals were not adaptive. If there truly were pools of random genetic variation in populations, and if this genetic variation provided variable degrees of fitness, then competition would indeed rule the animal kingdom, and the fittest would surely survive. BUT, individual animals are adaptive, and there is no reason to believe that any given moth will not adapt like any other moth in the same situation. Thus, if all organisms in a given environment adapt the same trait in the same way, there is no sense in saying that one will be any more fit than the next....and instead of specific genes determining who breeds, it's mostly a matter of being in the right place at the right time and finding a willing female, just like us humans.

  
Reciprocating Bill



Posts: 4265
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 19 2007,22:59   

Yawn. Night all.

--------------
Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be.

"The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you."
- David Foster Wallace

"Here’s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."
- Barry Arrington

  
skeptic



Posts: 1163
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 19 2007,23:00   

in this post, what do you mean by genes, evolution and natural selection?  If all of life is meaningless then everything you've said is meaningless and amounts to nothing.

  
supersport



Posts: 158
Joined: Aug. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 19 2007,23:02   

well you guys sure play dumb good.  This board is no challenge.

  
stevestory



Posts: 12422
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 19 2007,23:03   

the powers that be are doing ineffable 'powers-that-be' things. stay tuned.

   
supersport



Posts: 158
Joined: Aug. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 19 2007,23:13   

Quote (stevestory @ Sep. 19 2007,23:03)
the powers that be are doing ineffable 'powers-that-be' things. stay tuned.

no one care to debate natural selection with me?

Why would this guy write such a book of natural selection was so much of an indisputable fact?


http://www.amazon.com/Biologi....&sr=1-1

"In Biological Emergences, Robert Reid argues that natural selection is not the cause of evolution. He writes that the causes of variations, which he refers to as natural experiments, are independent of natural selection; indeed, he suggests, natural selection may get in the way of evolution. Reid proposes an alternative theory to explain how emergent novelties are generated and under what conditions they can overcome the resistance of natural selection. He suggests that what causes innovative variation causes evolution, and that these phenomena are environmental as well as organismal.

After an extended critique of selectionism, Reid constructs an emergence theory of evolution, first examining the evidence in three causal arenas of emergent evolution: symbiosis/association, evolutionary physiology/behavior, and developmental evolution. Based on this evidence of causation, he proposes some working hypotheses, examining mechanisms and processes common to all three arenas, and arrives at a theoretical framework that accounts for generative mechanisms and emergent qualities. Without selectionism, Reid argues, evolutionary innovation can more easily be integrated into a general thesis. Finally, Reid proposes a biological synthesis of rapid emergent evolutionary phases and the prolonged, dynamically stable, non-evolutionary phases imposed by natural selection."

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 19 2007,23:35   

Quote (stevestory @ Sep. 19 2007,23:03)
the powers that be are doing ineffable 'powers-that-be' things. stay tuned.

Supersport is starting to really remind me of Ghost of Paley.

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
MrsPeng



Posts: 15
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 20 2007,00:42   

Quote (supersport @ Sep. 18 2007,16:04)
 
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Sep. 18 2007,16:02)
souperspork

phenotype is not the corner of ToE and has not been since Weldon and Bateson argued about nothing.  It's like you have never heard of 20 century biology.  

buuuuuuuuttttttt.....  since you have revolutionary views that will completely transform the face of science, here is a journal that will be receptive to them.  they need help.

SuperSpunk's Nobel Prize Is Waiting...

well it should be....bodies and minds get passed down, not genes.

 
August Weismann figured out that bodies don't get passed down in the 1880s.

A HUGE, unending experiment continues to this day that disproves the inheritance of acquired characteristics:

Primary factors of organic evolution

If you want to start a real fight, mention "forced circumcision"  in certain circles, make some popcorn, grab a beer and a folding lawn chair and watch the fun.

So far, supersport, you have been only moderately entertaining here, despite some high quality tard you may have spewed on other fora. Your descent into inanity has been far too common: First the idiotic challenge that took no time at all to be answered. Then the shifting goal posts. "that's not what I mean by a mutation causing a blah blah blah' Then came the geological refutations. Then you start having a go at relativity. What's next? Whither the assault on entropy? I am very fond of second law arguments against evilution. It makes for some totally sweet, and by sweet I mean awesome, first-rate, blue-tees, hyphenated TARD.

--------------
"Sacred cows make the tastiest hamburgers." Abbie Hoffman

  
cdesign proponentsist



Posts: 16
Joined: Nov. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 20 2007,03:34   

Quote (supersport @ Sep. 18 2007,09:44)
 
Quote (IanBrown_101 @ Sep. 18 2007,09:43)
 
Quote (supersport @ Sep. 18 2007,15:35)
   
Quote (IanBrown_101 @ Sep. 18 2007,09:33)
Out of curiosity, and not particularly relevant to the thread as a whole.

1. How did you find here super?

2. Do you hate atheists, or do you just think they are wrong? There's a big difference, someone like Wes thinks atheists are, if only with their lack of belief, wrong, but don't hate us.
On the other hand, someone who considers atheists evil, or wicked AS A WHOLE, hates atheists.

I was browsing over at Brainstorms and saw a mention of this place.  I had never heard of it.  I'm glad I found it though...you guys are a riot.

No, I don't hate atheists....I used to be an unbeliever at one time myself.

Really? Is this not you then?

   
Quote
"What happened to the happy-go-lucky, peace-loving athiest? The reality is atheists are dreadfully miserable, foul-mouthed individuals....Truly the pond scum of society

that doesn't mean I hate them.  I hate science, not people.  That is just an observation.

SuperSport, I'm interested in how much of science you're willing to throw out. I'll admit that I don't understand your position on evolution because I don't see your hypothesis as testable (as in, we can't rule out that something supernatural whether it's god or something you've defined as "mind" has interfered with our results), but I do understand that often evolutionary denial is sort of a gateway to further science denial, and I'm trying to understand why.

I've composed a list of scientific theories (and one branch of mathematics) with the ones I think you're least willing to accept on top. I've even helpfully filled in two that seemed highly correlated with evolution denial. As a self-proclaimed hater of science, you seem like the perfect person to ask this question. How extreme of a denialist are you? Do even you have limits?

Theory (Accept Unsure Deny)
Evolution (Deny)
Theory of Relativity (Deny)
Global Warming (Deny?)
HIV/AIDS (Deny?)
Germ Theory of Disease
Quantum Mechanics
Electromagnetic Theory
Atomic Theory
Plate Tectonics
Big Bang
Trigonometry

--------------
"Believe it or not, it really helps that the other side thinks we’re such morons." -Dembski

The ID epiphany: Nothing in ID makes sense until you accept they're trying to look stupid.

  
Reciprocating Bill



Posts: 4265
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 20 2007,06:28   

Quote (cdesign proponentsist @ Sep. 20 2007,04:34)
I've composed a list of scientific theories (and one branch of mathematics) with the ones I think you're least willing to accept on top. I've even helpfully filled in two that seemed highly correlated with evolution denial. As a self-proclaimed hater of science, you seem like the perfect person to ask this question. How extreme of a denialist are you? Do even you have limits?

Theory (Accept Unsure Deny)
Evolution (Deny)
Theory of Relativity (Deny)
Global Warming (Deny?)
HIV/AIDS (Deny?)
Germ Theory of Disease
Quantum Mechanics
Electromagnetic Theory
Atomic Theory
Plate Tectonics
Big Bang
Trigonometry

I'm pretty sure he's down with Think-Thing theory. Put that on the list.

--------------
Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be.

"The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you."
- David Foster Wallace

"Here’s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."
- Barry Arrington

  
Reciprocating Bill



Posts: 4265
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 20 2007,06:33   

Quote (supersport @ Sep. 20 2007,00:02)
well you guys sure play dumb good.  This board is no challenge.

Like I said, sport, the horseshit you are vending is tiresome and empty, you and yours are not participants in serious discourse on these matters, and no one here really gives a rat's ass about what you think.

--------------
Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be.

"The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you."
- David Foster Wallace

"Here’s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."
- Barry Arrington

  
Albatrossity2



Posts: 2780
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 20 2007,06:47   

Quote (supersport @ Sep. 19 2007,23:02)
well you guys sure play dumb good.  This board is no challenge.

Yeah, some of us play dumb. Took a while to learn. But your dumbness is innate, I fear.

Oh, BTW, about that question I asked. I think that the number of times I have asked it (and you have ignored it) is now up to double figures. Might be a record; I suspect Afdave is the current record holder, with FtK a close second. But I'll try it again, just to see how long you can play deaf and dumb.

What scientific evidence (peer-reviewed publication) can you provide for your assertion that mental processes generate life instantly?

Thanks again for not playing.

--------------
Flesh of the sky, child of the sky, the mind
Has been obligated from the beginning
To create an ordered universe
As the only possible proof of its own inheritance.
                        - Pattiann Rogers

   
supersport



Posts: 158
Joined: Aug. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 20 2007,07:04   

This forum is pathetic.  Truly pathetic.  I ask you mental lightweights about mutations in my OP...never do I get a single answer....I asked about natural selection above, no answer again.  Instead all I get are insults.  This nonsense has gone on for 14 pages.   Now reach down, grab your tiny, sorry excuse for manhood and answer my previous post about natural selection.  Why should I believe that natural selection causes evolution, (change over time) when it has been proven that individual internal adaptations cause change over time?

by the way, MRSpeng, we've already been through that nonsense about Weismann.  That fraud misrepresented Lamarck's position.  Lamarck never argued that physical assaults on the organism would be inherited...what he argued was life experiences, internal adaptations to the environment would or could be inherited.  Now show me any scientific disproving this.

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 20 2007,07:11   

Quote (supersport @ Sep. 20 2007,07:04)
This forum is pathetic.

Quote
This forum is pathetic.  Truly pathetic.  I ask you mental lightweights about mutations in my OP...never do I get a single answer....


You had several. You, cubicle boy, even responded to them and questioned them. Are you on some sort of medication?

Quote
.I asked about natural selection above, no answer again.  Instead all I get are insults.


Go read a book.

Quote
Now reach down, grab your tiny, sorry excuse for manhood and answer my previous post about natural selection.


What was that about insults? Would Jesus want to see you using language like that? What a good Christian you are.
Quote
Why should I believe that natural selection causes evolution, (change over time) when it has been proven that individual internal adaptations cause change over time?


If it's been "proven" what's left to discuss? You are therefore on the "winning" side and this is the "losing" side. Are you therefore only here to gloat? Would Jesus approve of that?

Do you or don't you have a response to the bacteria point? You have had a central plank of your "case" demolished and won't acknowledge it. Not only are you a cubicle bunny, but demonstrably dishonest too!

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
supersport



Posts: 158
Joined: Aug. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 20 2007,07:14   

show me where it's been proven by way of controlled experiment.

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 20 2007,07:15   

SuperSport the cubicle dwelling troll Said
Quote
We’ve recently learned from J.C. Sanford that the genome is degenerating. We see proof of that all around us with all the new crop of genetic diseases.


I responded with
Quote
Why don't the "fast breeders" suffer genetic diseases? Bacteria etc? Millions of generations gone past, and yet here they all still are ready to infect your food at the slightest chance.


SuperSport the dilbert knock off said
Quote
Probably diet.....bacteria don't eat an assortment of chemicals, fats, salts, additives, hydrogenated oils, sodas, chips, fries, burgers, onion rings, Cheetos, fruit juice and corn dogs.....we do. Add on top of that exposure to pollution, industrial toxins, city water that's been loaded with fluoride and chlorine, pesticides, and all kinds of other contaminates.  It's causing a wholesale degeneration in the genome.

And I posted
Quote
Bacteria found in radioactive waste Hanford. U.S. Scientists studying the soil beneath a leaking Hanford nuclear waste storage tank have discovered more than 100 species of bacteria living in a toxic, radioactive environment that most considered inhospitable to all forms of life.


Yet SuperSport has not commented. I've just destroyed a big part of your pathetic belief "system" (not really, as we know you are a Troll, but let's carry on pretending).

Typical dishonest YEC behavior.

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 20 2007,07:18   

SuperSport Said
Quote
Why should I believe that natural selection causes evolution, (change over time) when it has been proven that individual internal adaptations cause change over time?


I said
Quote
You have had a central plank of your "case" demolished and won't acknowledge it. Not only are you a cubicle bunny, but demonstrably dishonest too!


SuperCubicleBoy Said
Quote
show me where it's been proven by way of controlled experiment.


Tell you what SuperBoy, you show me where it's been proven by controlled experiment that individual internal adaptations cause change over time, and I'll show you where it's been proven that bacteria thrive on toxic waste.

Fair Deal?

Or don't YEC's believe in honesty?

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
carlsonjok



Posts: 3325
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 20 2007,07:21   

Quote (supersport @ Sep. 20 2007,07:04)
This forum is pathetic.  Truly pathetic.  I ask you mental lightweights about mutations in my OP...never do I get a single answer....I asked about natural selection above, no answer again.  Instead all I get are insults.   Now reach down, grab your tiny, sorry excuse for manhood and answer my previous post about natural selection.

2 Days, 9.5 hours to move from OP to belligerency.  That has got to be a new record!  Someone needs to tell AFDave he has been bested.  SS, you da man!!

 
Quote
Why should I believe that natural selection causes evolution, (change over time) when it has been proven that individual internal adaptations cause change over time?


You shouldn't.  You are far smarter and have far better insights than the hundreds of thousands of working scientists that have studied this matter for the last couple hundred years.  Why are you wasting your time in a dingy backwater like ATBC casting pearls before such swine?  You need a wider platform if you are going to overturn all of modern science.

As for me, I'm running right out and finding a Baptist church to join. Oh, and I'm finally going to start studying for my real estate license too.  I want to stick it to those pinheaded so-called scientists with all their fancy book-larnin' and alphabet soup after their names!!

--------------
It's natural to be curious about our world, but the scientific method is just one theory about how to best understand it.  We live in a democracy, which means we should treat every theory equally. - Steven Colbert, I Am America (and So Can You!)

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 20 2007,07:31   

Quote (supersport @ Sep. 20 2007,07:14)
show me where it's been proven by way of controlled experiment.

Production of Ethane, Ethylene, and Acetylene from Halogenated Hydrocarbons by Methanogenic Bacteria

Reduction of U(VI) to U(IV) by indigenous bacteria in contaminated ground water

Microbiological degradation of pesticides in yard waste composting.

Microbial Diversity in Uranium Mine Waste Heaps

The abstract for that last one bears repeating

Quote
Two different uranium mine waste heaps near Ronneburg, Thuringia, Germany, which contain the remains of the activity of the former uranium-mining Soviet-East German company Wismut AG, were analyzed for the occurrence of lithotrophic and chemoorganotropic leach bacteria. A total of 162 ore samples were taken up to a depth of 5 m. Cell counts of ferrous iron-, sulfur-, sulfur compound-, ammonia-, and nitrite-oxidizing bacteria were determined quantitatively by the most-probable-number technique. Sulfate-, nitrate-, ferric iron-, and manganese-reducing bacteria were also detected. In addition, the metabolic activity of sulfur- and iron-oxidizing bacteria was measured by microcalorimetry. Generally, all microorganisms mentioned above were detectable in the heaps. Aerobic and anaerobic microorganisms thrived up to a depth of 1.5 to 2 m. Up to 99% of Thiobacillus ferrooxidans cells, the dominant leaching bacteria, occurred to this depth. Their numbers correlated with the microbial activity measurements. Samples below 1.5 to 2 m exhibited reduced oxygen concentrations and reduced cell counts for all microorganisms.


SuperSport, do you understand what the world "thrives" means?

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
  603 replies since Sep. 17 2007,22:32 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (21) < ... 9 10 11 12 13 [14] 15 16 17 18 19 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

[ Read the Board Rules ] | [Useful Links] | [Evolving Designs]