Antievolution.org :: Antievolution.org Discussion Board The Critic's Resource on Antievolution

Antievolution.org Discussion Board > From the Panda's Thumb > After the Bar Closes... > AFDave Wants You to Prove Evolution to Him

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

stevestory Posts: 13407 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: May 25 2006,07:46    Cometh Dave with creationist griping, Anti-evolutionist sniping, Famed New Yorker guy, Would surely reply, "That's not writing," sayeth Truman, "That's typing."

afdave Posts: 1621 Joined: April 2006 (Permalink) Posted: May 25 2006,07:52    Quote So what does the kid take away from this?  ToE=All life came from a Single Cell ancestor=Scientific fact, and by the way, disease resistant bacteria proves it. Only if the kid were an idiot.  The article you're quoting doesn't say that antibiotic resistant bacteria "prove" "macroevolution." Need I parse it for you?  It says 1. Scientists accept evolution from a common ancestor and 2. Evolutionary change has been observed and 3. Antibiotic resistance is an example of observed evolution Then you must be an idiot.  Because I'll wager that you read just this kind of stuff in World Book and National Geographic and at the museum and so on when you were a kid and combined with everything else you learned about evolution, you came to the conclusion that the Bible is a fairy tale and there is no need for a Creator God because look ... Apes and humans are so similar, and look at the fossil record, and look at the age of the earth, and look at evolution in bacteria, and on and on ... who needs to invoke God did it? I submit to you that if you don't think evolutionists think that antibiotic resistant bacteria lend support to macroevolutionary theory (which some people pretend they don't know what we're talking about with this term), then you are simply lying.  It's plain as day in the popular literature which in turn is based on information from scientists like you. The good news for me and all creationists is that most of the general public does think that resistant bacteria not only lends support to ToE, but is a very strong support. It will be quite fun for us disseminating the news to the public that it most certainly does not.  Oh, and by the way, General Public, I have the firm statements from evolutionary biologists at PT that it does not. One more leg of the shaky table is removed !! I love it! -------------- A DILEMMA FOR THE COMMITTED NATURALIST A Hi-tech alien spaceship lands on earth ... DESIGNED. A Hi-tech alien rotary motor found in a cell ... NOT DESIGNED. http://afdave.wordpress.com/....ess.com

Chris Hyland Posts: 705 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: May 25 2006,08:29    Quote I submit to you that if you don't think evolutionists think that antibiotic resistant bacteria lend support to macroevolutionary theory (which some people pretend they don't know what we're talking about with this term), then you are simply lying.  It's plain as day in the popular literature which in turn is based on information from scientists like you. You seem to be under some kind of weird impression that each piece of evidence to support evolution must singularly conclusively prove that humans evolved from bacteria. Im afraid it doesn't work like that, is isn't as simple as you think it should be. Drug resistant bacteria are one of the many pieces of evidence for evolution as they demonstrate mutation, selection and adaptation. Every time you talk about a piece of evidence you act like this is the only evidence we have. Your conclusions seem to be based on twisting some things we say and ignoring others, and so I pity the children you are telling these things to.

ericmurphy Posts: 2460 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: May 25 2006,08:38    Quote (afdave @ May 25 2006,12:52) I submit to you that if you don't think evolutionists think that antibiotic resistant bacteria lend support to macroevolutionary theory (which some people pretend they don't know what we're talking about with this term), then you are simply lying.  It's plain as day in the popular literature which in turn is based on information from scientists like you. Dave, do you understand the difference between "lends support to the theory,"  and "proves the theory" (no one piece of evidence "proves" the theory of evolution)? Furthermore, do you even understand the difference between microevolution and macroevolution? How could bacterial resistance possibly lend support to macroevolutionary theory, when it's not even an example of macroevolution? Think, Dave, think. This isn't rocket science, Dave. Or even jet science, for that matter.   Quote One more leg of the shaky table is removed !! I love it! Nice try, Dave. You deliberately misrepresent your opponent's argument, shoot down that argument (kinda, sorta, but not really), and then claim victory. This is what's known as a "straw man" argument, and it's kind of frowned upon around here. -------------- 2006 MVD award for most dogged defense of scientific sanity "Atheism is a religion the same way NOT collecting stamps is a hobby." —Scott Adams

incorygible Posts: 374 Joined: Feb. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: May 25 2006,08:47    Quote Then you must be an idiot.  Because I'll wager that you read just this kind of stuff in World Book and National Geographic and at the museum and so on when you were a kid and combined with everything else you learned about evolution, you came to the conclusion that the Bible is a fairy tale and there is no need for a Creator God because look ... Apes and humans are so similar, and look at the fossil record, and look at the age of the earth, and look at evolution in bacteria, and on and on ... who needs to invoke God did it? In the only from afdave file, Davey equates idiocy with education (and perhaps atheism).  Okay, Dave, I was wrong -- by your Bizarro definitions, you are NOT an idiot. Quote I submit to you that if you don't think evolutionists think that antibiotic resistant bacteria lend support to macroevolutionary theory (which some people pretend they don't know what we're talking about with this term), then you are simply lying.  It's plain as day in the popular literature which in turn is based on information from scientists like you. And I submit to you that you are inadvertantly correct, if only because you don't understand the difference between (nevermind the meaning of) evidence and proof, nor proves and lends support to, and thus are prone to using them interchangeably.  Once in a while, this leads to your comments almost making sense (especially when you fail to grasp that our definition of "macroevolution", if we employ it at all, does not contain the word "information" or "upward" or...).  But by then they don't mean what you think they mean, do they?  He11uva Catch-22. Dave, how are we supposed to carry on a discussion with you if we can't use words or numbers, since you demonstrate a thoroughly appalling incapacity to understand either? No wonder your vaunted opponent, jstockwell, starts out very politely but ends up just giving up and calling you an idiot, as Aftershave and Rilke and Faid and Jeannot and myself &c. have done before (check your early threads, big guy).

Faid Posts: 1143 Joined: Mar. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: May 25 2006,08:50    Quote (afdave @ May 25 2006,12:52) Then you must be an idiot.  Because I'll wager that you read just this kind of stuff in World Book and National Geographic and at the museum and so on when you were a kid and combined with everything else you learned about evolution, you came to the conclusion that the Bible is a fairy tale and there is no need for a Creator God because look ... Apes and humans are so similar, and look at the fossil record, and look at the age of the earth, and look at evolution in bacteria, and on and on ... who needs to invoke God did it? I submit to you that if you don't think evolutionists think that antibiotic resistant bacteria lend support to macroevolutionary theory (which some people pretend they don't know what we're talking about with this term), then you are simply lying.  It's plain as day in the popular literature which in turn is based on information from scientists like you. The good news for me and all creationists is that most of the general public does think that resistant bacteria not only lends support to ToE, but is a very strong support. It will be quite fun for us disseminating the news to the public that it most certainly does not.  Oh, and by the way, General Public, I have the firm statements from evolutionary biologists at PT that it does not. One more leg of the shaky table is removed !! I love it! Starting to lose your thick skin, dave? Don't worry, it's not like it's the first time we've caught you arguing against something you know nothing about: we're used to that by now. Quote I love it! ...P-Professor Davidson???? -------------- A look into DAVE HAWKINS' sense of honesty: "The truth is that ALL mutations REDUCE information" "...mutations can add information to a genome.  And remember, I have never said that this is not possible."

BWE Posts: 1902 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: May 25 2006,09:03    My interest in Davey is Waning Since I have inpected the draining Oatmeal mush from his cranial location Slowly draining since indoctrination In self-evident truths of creation And intellectual constipation And his words that he hopes will be staining Young minds punished like caning And he goes on a rage campaigning For truth or a lie or a chaining Of science with shackles of shaming. Ok, we'll improve with the next one. Davey, did you read my last post? I had a revelation! Care to comment? -------------- Who said that ev'ry wish would be heard and answered When wished on the morning star Somebody thought of that, and someone believed it Look what it's done so far The Daily Wingnut

BWE Posts: 1902 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: May 25 2006,09:07    Sorry, My revelation in verse: God and heaven both unfold While you yourself are being sold By preachers round a water hole To those who want to gain control Over body mind heart and soul In fear that they are growing old Their bodies that will decompose So pave the fears with bricks of gold And keep you in a stranglehold Of fear that you can only go To pastures sung about of woe Sheep for shepherd’s crook to mold Body mind heart and soul The joys that we can only know Apart from any friend or foe We learned about them long ago Where our thoughts can overflow From silver cups and drinking bowls And timeless loves that we stow In little boxes wrapped in bows Enjoying time where we forego Fear of pleasures down below Chains of daisies that we hold As we dance we know it’s so The hours our ours to see no more -------------- Who said that ev'ry wish would be heard and answered When wished on the morning star Somebody thought of that, and someone believed it Look what it's done so far The Daily Wingnut

jeannot Posts: 1201 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: May 25 2006,09:09    Quote (afdave @ May 25 2006,12:52) I love it! You love looking like a ignorant fool in public? Are you some kind of masochist, AFDave?

BWE Posts: 1902 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: May 25 2006,09:17    That should read   Quote I love it so! -------------- Who said that ev'ry wish would be heard and answered When wished on the morning star Somebody thought of that, and someone believed it Look what it's done so far The Daily Wingnut

ericmurphy Posts: 2460 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: May 25 2006,09:53    Dave, I'm going to cross-post this here in case you haven't read the thread where I originally posted it, the "Reserved for AFDave's YEC evidence" thread. I'm guessing you haven't actually visited that thread yet, so you probably haven't read this:     Quote I think it's just a little significant that Dave has yet to even post to this thread. I can't imagine he doesn't know it's here. It only adds further confirmation (if any were needed) that Dave doesn't actually have any YEC evidence. You do realize, Dave, that your absence from that thread is pretty powerful evidence that you do not, in fact, have any evidence whatsoever for your "Creator God Hypothesis," don't you? We always suspected so anyway, but it's interesting that you've shown so little interest in disabusing us of the notion. -------------- 2006 MVD award for most dogged defense of scientific sanity "Atheism is a religion the same way NOT collecting stamps is a hobby." —Scott Adams

BWE Posts: 1902 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: May 25 2006,11:40    Quote We always suspected so anyway, but it's interesting that you've shown so little interest in disabusing us of the notion. It's just that he is "disinclined to acquiesce" 10 points to the one who recognizes that quote. PS, I'm kinda proud of that last poem. Rather lyrical. I will set it to music I think. -------------- Who said that ev'ry wish would be heard and answered When wished on the morning star Somebody thought of that, and someone believed it Look what it's done so far The Daily Wingnut

stevestory Posts: 13407 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: May 25 2006,12:16    "One half of one stupid percent? (I wish that I knew what that meant) Your lectures on genes, Don't mean to me beans, And so far you've not made a dent!"

BWE Posts: 1902 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: May 25 2006,13:41    Davey, You're a muse! All things according to the creator's plan. You needed to be so insanely ridiculously stupid to spur us on to poetic inspiration. Thank you -------------- Who said that ev'ry wish would be heard and answered When wished on the morning star Somebody thought of that, and someone believed it Look what it's done so far The Daily Wingnut

argystokes Posts: 766 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: May 25 2006,15:11    BWE - Pirates! -------------- "Why waste time learning, when ignorance is instantaneous?" -Calvin

argystokes Posts: 766 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: May 25 2006,15:54    Quote Then you must be an idiot.  Because I'll wager that you read just this kind of stuff in World Book and National Geographic and at the museum and so on when you were a kid and combined with everything else you learned about evolution, you came to the conclusion that the Bible is a fairy tale and there is no need for a Creator God because look ... If you really must know, learning evolution had nothing to do with me "losing my faith" (if a 9 year old can have faith).  It was simply lack of evidence (no prayers answered, never any miracles occurring, etc.).  And lack of evidence is still the reason for my atheism.  I don't remember if I'd learned about evolution yet.  Definitely knew a lot about dinosaurs at the time, though. -------------- "Why waste time learning, when ignorance is instantaneous?" -Calvin

Rilke's Granddaughter Posts: 311 Joined: Jan. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: May 25 2006,16:15    Quote Then you must be an idiot.  Because I'll wager that you read just this kind of stuff in World Book and National Geographic and at the museum and so on when you were a kid and combined with everything else you learned about evolution, you came to the conclusion that the Bible is a fairy tale and there is no need for a Creator God because look ... Apes and humans are so similar, and look at the fossil record, and look at the age of the earth, and look at evolution in bacteria, and on and on ... who needs to invoke God did it? Since there are many, many scientists who accept both evolution and God, your bizarre contention that the theory of evolution somehow eliminates God continues to make you look like the greatest a55 in Christendom. You're stupid Dave - that's why you buddies in the Air Force ignored your little 'pamphlets' and probably laughed at you behind your back. You're stupid Dave - cause you can't even understand evolution well enough to argue against it. You're stupid Dave - cause your blind 'science vs. theism' diatribe won't go over with the public; only with innocent children too inexperienced to realize that you're crippling them for life. It's child abuse, Dave.  That's what you're doing to them.  To teach that one must choose between evolution and Christianity is the stupidest, most illogical, most unreasonable position you can hold. No wonder you only made 2nd. Lt.

Occam's Aftershave Posts: 5287 Joined: Feb. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: May 25 2006,17:13    Rilke's Granddaughter says   Quote It's child abuse, Dave.  That's what you're doing to them.  To teach that one must choose between evolution and Christianity is the stupidest, most illogical, most unreasonable position you can hold. There's one silver lining to AFDave's dark cloud of lies and child abuse.  Many of Dave's child victims will realize when they get older that they were lied to and used.  Hopefully they will develop a great resentment not just for AFDave, but for all the other evangelistic liars and charlatans like Dave who abuse children for their own selfish egotistical reasons.  They will make great champions for science because they will understand first-hand the damage that the pseudoscientific liars-for-Jesus like Washout Dave can cause. -------------- "CO2 can't re-emit any trapped heat unless all the molecules point the right way" "All the evidence supports Creation baraminology" "If it required a mind, planning and design, it isn't materialistic." "Jews and Christians are Muslims." - Joke "Sharon" Gallien, world's dumbest YEC.

Bing Posts: 144 Joined: Mar. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: May 26 2006,02:05    Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ May 25 2006,22:13) There's one silver lining to AFDave's dark cloud of lies and child abuse.  Many of Dave's child victims will realize when they get older that they were lied to and used.  Hopefully they will develop a great resentment not just for AFDave, but for all the other evangelistic liars and charlatans like Dave who abuse children for their own selfish egotistical reasons.  They will make great champions for science because they will understand first-hand the damage that the pseudoscientific liars-for-Jesus like Washout Dave can cause. I fear a great many more will complete their home-schooling and go on to academic careers at Patrick Henry College and then into internships with senators and congressmen.

incorygible Posts: 374 Joined: Feb. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: May 26 2006,02:13    Quote (Bing @ May 26 2006,07:05) I fear a great many more will complete their home-schooling and go on to academic careers at Patrick Henry College and then into internships with senators and congressmen. But it will be short-lived, since I'm pretty sure the aides of senators and congressmen have to be able to identify which "one lousy percentage points" are important.

afdave Posts: 1621 Joined: April 2006 (Permalink) Posted: May 27 2006,01:44    Quote Okay, AFDave: Let's begin again. Your broken link should be  this one.. This paper is not "research" it is a literature review, and a poorly done one at that. A cursory search for papers that directly contradict what "Kevin Anderson, Ph.D." was saying in his "review of the literature" comes up with some fast results: Did I say it was "research"?  Did I say this guy performed all the relevant experiments himself to support his conclusions?  Are you taking the absurd position that for anyone's papers to be worth anything, they have to do the original research themselves?  I have no problem with it being a literature review.  Why do you?  All researchers do literature reviews and come to conclusions, both Evo and Creo.  Stop your whining.  It's a good literature review and your lame attempts to show otherwise don't hack it.   Quote http://aac.asm.org/cgi/content/full/48/4/1289  "Effect of rpoB Mutations Conferring Rifampin Resistance on Fitness of Mycobacterium tuberculosis" Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy, April 2004, p. 1289-1294, Vol. 48, No. 4 Quote   ... resistance mutations appear to confer no cost (<1% reduction in fitness), at least as measured by in vitro assay systems. For example, certain rpsL mutations (streptomycin resistance) in M. tuberculosis , Escherichia coli, and Salmonella enterica serovar Typhimurium , katG mutations (isoniazid resistance) in M. tuberculosis , and gyrA and parC mutations (fluoroquinolone resistance) in Streptococcus pneumoniae confer no measurable reduction in growth rate. Your guy is saying <1% cost = no cost.  Come on.   Quote Fitness costs conferred by mutations that [do]alter target molecules may also be partly or fully ameliorated by compensatory mutations without loss of resistance. Such compensatory evolution has been observed in vitro, in experimental animals, and in clinical situations. Thus, the occurrence of cost-free mutations and compensatory evolution suggests that antibiotic-resistant bacteria will not disappear as a result of restricted use of antibiotics   Really?  Prove it.  Don't just assert it.   Quote Your boy, Kevin Anderson, also claims that no mutations resulting in drug resistance have been identified. He somehow believes that lateral transfer happens miraculously: Quote   Spontaneous mutation does provide a potential genetic mechanism for the origin of these genes, but such an origin has never been demonstrated Point mutations in the dihydrofolate reductase and dihydropteroate synthase genes of Plasmodium falciparum and resistance to sulfadoxine-pyrimethamine in Sri Lanka. Hapuarachchi HC, et al  (2006). Am J Trop Med Hyg 74: 198-204 Quote   Sulfadoxine-pyrimethamine (SP) is the second-line treatment for Plasmodium falciparum malaria in Sri Lanka. Resistance to SP is caused by point mutations in the dihydrofolate reductase (Pf-dhfr) and dihydropteroate synthase (Pf-dhps) genes of P. falciparum. Deadman ... read carefully, my friend.  He's talking about the ORIGIN of the genes.  He does not claim that no mutations resulting in drug resistance have been identified.  Quite the opposite.  The whole article is about how they DO, but that it is not because of "adding something" but rather it's because of the LOSS of something. "He says that "Spontaneous mutation does provide a potential genetic mechanism for the ORIGIN OF THESE GENES, but such an ORIGIN has never been demonstrated ."  See that word "ORIGIN" ??   Nice try at rebutting, but you have to do better than that. ************************************************************************* RESISTANT BACTERIA -- STILL NO PROOF FOR 'UPWARD' EVOLUTION (for the slow people 'upward' in this context means 'toward more complex life forms' Just to recap, evolutionists for many years having been offering anti-biotic resistant bacteria as evidence for macroevolution.  The reasoning is "Look at bacteria ... they 'evolve' and develop drug resistance ... see?  This means that a little, single celled organism a billion years ago could have likewise 'evolved' into a multi-celled organism, which in turn continued to evolve into the diversity of life forms we see today.  Isn't this wonderful?"  Neat fairy tale, yes.   The Anderson paper cited on 5/24 in this thread clearly shows that the developed resistance is the result of either a rearrangement of genes, horizontal gene transfer, or a LOSS of function, not a gain.  These are not the types of mechanisms which evolutionists so desparately need to support their theory. The hilarious thing is that the folks here at Panda's Thumb say they aren't even aware that resistant bacteria are offered as evidence of macroevolution.  This can only mean that they are lying or they are very naive. Notice also the Evos desparate attempt to portray me as a "child-abuser" ... why you may ask?  Well ... I contribute content to a Bible based, creationist kids web site at www.kids4truth.com .   Oh ... and maybe because I take my kids to church and teach them the Bible is true.  Child abuse!  What a joke.  These guys are really scraping bottom.   Anyway, another leg of the shaky table just got broken for me. (Note:  My original post on 5/24 was entitled "RESISTANT BACTERIA ..." then on 5/24, I wrote "DISEASE RESISTANT BACTERIA ..." -- this was an error ... I meant to write "ANTIBIOTIC RESISTANT BACTERIA") -------------- A DILEMMA FOR THE COMMITTED NATURALIST A Hi-tech alien spaceship lands on earth ... DESIGNED. A Hi-tech alien rotary motor found in a cell ... NOT DESIGNED. http://afdave.wordpress.com/....ess.com

jeannot Posts: 1201 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: May 27 2006,02:09    Quote (afdave @ May 27 2006,06:44) "Spontaneous mutation does provide a potential genetic mechanism for the ORIGIN OF THESE GENES, but such an ORIGIN has never been demonstrated ."  See that word "ORIGIN" ??   ... Just to recap, evolutionists for many years having been offering anti-biotic resistant bacteria as evidence for macroevolution.   What the heck is your point, Dave?   No, spontaneous mutations in a gene don't provide any evidence regarding its origine. What does a child's broken arm say about his parents? And your 2nd assertion is just plain wrong, as always.

afdave Posts: 1621 Joined: April 2006 (Permalink) Posted: May 27 2006,03:01    Jeannot said ... Quote What the heck is your point, Dave?   No, spontaneous mutations in a gene don't provide any evidence regarding its origine. What does a child's broken arm say about his parents? And your 2nd assertion is just plain wrong, as always. Here's my point ... again ... slowly. (1) Deadman says that "my man" Dr. Anderson claims that no mutations resulting in drug resistance have been identified.  Dr. Anderson claims no such thing (2) Deadman absurdly supports (1) above with this from Dr. A ... "Spontaneous mutation does provide a potential genetic mechanism for the origin of these genes, but such an origin has never been demonstrated." Do you see and agree now that Dr. A says no such thing? (3) I point out that this quote from Dr. A is showing that the ORIGIN of the genetic mechanism has never been demonstrated, not that there IS NO mechanism, as Deadman asserts I'm glad that at least YOU agree with me that "spontaneous mutations in a gene don't provide any evidence regarding its origin" because evolutionists desparately need to account for the origin of this type of mechanism, but they have come up empty handed. Thanks for agreeing with this. Could you please explain this whole thing to Deadman?  He appears confused. Quote What does a child's broken arm say about his parents? Well, Jeannot, here's some possibilities for you ... (1)  His parents shouldn't let him climb trees (2)  His parents shouldn't let him play tackle football (3)  His parents shouldn't let him ride motocross (4)  His parents shouldn't let him do umpteen other possibly dangerous activities (5)  His parents shouldn't discipline him with a baseball bat (probably the one you are thinking about) Now tell me ... what did your question have to do with anything? Were you lamely trying to connect a hypothetical kid's broken arm with the absurd attempt of some people to portray 'indoctrination of kids with creationism' as child abuse? Quote And your 2nd assertion is just plain wrong, as always.  Wrong, huh.  Do you care to try to PROVE me wrong?  I gave a great example supporting my assertion.  Could you give me an example refuting my assertion? -------------- A DILEMMA FOR THE COMMITTED NATURALIST A Hi-tech alien spaceship lands on earth ... DESIGNED. A Hi-tech alien rotary motor found in a cell ... NOT DESIGNED. http://afdave.wordpress.com/....ess.com

Faid Posts: 1143 Joined: Mar. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: May 27 2006,03:46    Dave, can you state your "great example" again please? I must have missed it. Oh, and don't point me to your previous posts; not me, after all the times I've explained the same thing to you over and over again. Can you tell me, in plain words, how ToE uses aquired resistance to antibiotics by bacteria as an example of macroevolution? Quote The hilarious thing is that the folks here at Panda's Thumb say they aren't even aware that resistant bacteria are offered as evidence of macroevolution.  This can only mean that they are lying or they are very naive. Or, you know, that you have absolutely no idea what macroevolution is supposed to mean. Just a thought. But since Prof. Anderson is your new favorite now, after Wieland and Woodmorappe bit the dust, can you answer that question I keep asking you? If another point mutation in the same place makes the enzyme sensitive to rifampin again, what function will be lost, dave? That's like, the fourth time? But don't think I'll get bored. I'm actually enjoying this. -------------- A look into DAVE HAWKINS' sense of honesty: "The truth is that ALL mutations REDUCE information" "...mutations can add information to a genome.  And remember, I have never said that this is not possible."

ericmurphy Posts: 2460 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: May 27 2006,05:25    Dave, do you even read other people's posts? Or are you developing Thordaddy syndrome? I dealt with these issues already, just yesterday:     Quote (afdave @ May 27 2006,06:44) Did I say it was "research"?  Did I say this guy performed all the relevant experiments himself to support his conclusions?  Are you taking the absurd position that for anyone's papers to be worth anything, they have to do the original research themselves?  I have no problem with it being a literature review.  Why do you?  All researchers do literature reviews and come to conclusions, both Evo and Creo.  Stop your whining.  It's a good literature review and your lame attempts to show otherwise don't hack it. Read my previous post re "research papers" vs. "literature review." You don't remember reading it?     Quote RESISTANT BACTERIA -- STILL NO PROOF FOR 'UPWARD' EVOLUTION (for the slow people 'upward' in this context means 'toward more complex life forms' Just to recap, evolutionists for many years having been offering anti-biotic resistant bacteria as evidence for macroevolution.  The reasoning is "Look at bacteria ... they 'evolve' and develop drug resistance ... see?   You didn't read my previous post on why bacterial resistance is not evidence for macroevolution, Dave? I only posted it yesterday. Come on. Is it any wonder people get exasperated when dealing with you? The endless repetition starts to get on everyone's nerves.     Quote The hilarious thing is that the folks here at Panda's Thumb say they aren't even aware that resistant bacteria are offered as evidence of macroevolution.  This can only mean that they are lying or they are very naive. No, Dave. It means that you're clueless.     Quote Anyway, another leg of the shaky table just got broken for me. Is that why you're sprawled on the floor with stars circling your head, Dave? -------------- 2006 MVD award for most dogged defense of scientific sanity "Atheism is a religion the same way NOT collecting stamps is a hobby." —Scott Adams

Russell Posts: 1082 Joined: April 2005 (Permalink) Posted: May 27 2006,05:42    Quote Your guy is saying <1% cost = no cost.  Come on. He's saying that, if there is a cost, it's too small to measure. What's Anderson saying? That "creationist theory" predicts that there will always be a cost, which may or may not be detectable? That's just dumb. Also, when you say Quote because evolutionists desparately* need to account for the origin of this type of mechanism, but they have come up empty handed. What type of mechanism are you talking about? What's your idea of an proposed origin that doesn't work? I have some ideas, but since the standard creationist response to any explanation is "Yeah? well, what came before that?", we need to have some idea, in advance, what the question really is. I.e., let's anchor those goalposts before we start aiming for them. *it's spelled "desperately -------------- Must... not... scratch... mosquito bite.

Ved Posts: 398 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: May 27 2006,05:50    You're acting retarded again dave. Dave, you referred to "macroevolution" as "[eyes appearing where there were no eyes before, and wings appearing where there were no wings before]" How the F is bacteria developing anti-biotic resistance anywhere near this ballpark???

carlsonjok Posts: 3326 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: May 27 2006,05:55    Quote (ericmurphy @ May 27 2006,10:25)       Quote RESISTANT BACTERIA -- STILL NO PROOF FOR 'UPWARD' EVOLUTION (for the slow people 'upward' in this context means 'toward more complex life forms' Just to recap, evolutionists for many years having been offering anti-biotic resistant bacteria as evidence for macroevolution.  The reasoning is "Look at bacteria ... they 'evolve' and develop drug resistance ... see?   You didn't read my previous post on why bacterial resistance is not evidence for macroevolution, Dave? I only posted it yesterday. Come on. You know, I am just a simple industrial engineer (which isn't much more than business with some calculus thrown in) and the extent of my knowledge of biology comes from reading "A Short History of Nearly Everything" by Bill Bryson.  Even I knew that anti-biotic resistance in bacteria was proof of micro-evolution, not macro-evolution. After watching this thread for a few days now, I have to wonder if continuing the discussion is like mud wrestling a pig.  Pretty soon you realize that it is pointless, and that the pig is enjoying it. -------------- 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!)

sir_toejam Posts: 846 Joined: April 2005 (Permalink) Posted: May 27 2006,09:09    oh, don't worry, the mud is apparently enjoying it as well. *rolleyes*

incorygible Posts: 374 Joined: Feb. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: May 27 2006,09:21    Quote (afdave @ May 27 2006,06:44) Your guy is saying <1% cost = no cost.  Come on. Um...Dave...given you prior comments on the ape thread, exactly how are you determining when "<1%" is important and when it is not?

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

Track this topic	Email this topic	Print this topic

© 2002-2009 Antievolution.org Powered by Ikonboard 3.0.2a © 2001 Ikonboard