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) < ... 10 11 12 13 14 [15] 16 17 18 >

Paul Flocken Posts: 290 Joined: Dec. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: May 24 2006,12:49    Quote (afdave @ May 24 2006,13:11) ... ...we don't attack the cancer researchers or doctors or geologists searching for oil, and many, many other good people... ... P.S. Dave, For an avowed YEC I should think that Geology would be a far more damaging science to your position than Biology.  Why doesn't it give you heartburn? -------------- "The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie--deliberate, contrived, and dishonest, but the myth, persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic.  Belief in myths allows the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought."-John F. Kennedy

sir_toejam Posts: 846 Joined: April 2005 (Permalink) Posted: May 24 2006,12:49    let me clarify something Dave said:   Quote Reading comprehension, Rilke.  Not the public HERE.  The public OUT THERE.  See, let me walk you through it again. translation: I've never been in public before, so I'm afraid that reality might conflict with my worldview, and came here first so i could run away if that was true.   Quote (1) AF Dave needs to sharpen his arguments because he is actively involved in the education of children with regard to Origins.  See www.kids4truth.com.  He does not want to lead these children wrong, so he wants to test his arguments against some evolutionary biologists.  He has big plans for greatly expanded information to be available at k4t. translation: I wanted to find out what the real arguments are, so i could effectively produce half-truths, obfuscations, and outright lies to cover them up for the kids I want to indoctrinate into my cult.  Wouldn't want them seeing any form of reality before I'm done with them.   Quote (2) So he comes to PT and finds some willing participants at ATBC, some of whom, like Rilke, have absolutely no clue what his goals are, but they try to guess. translation: I know my goals are obvious, but i figured you wouldn't be able to resist arguing with me anyway.     Quote (3) AFD has immense fun debating, achieves his goal of honing his arguments, the ATBCers are happy because they think they are honing their arguments, or watching a comedy, practicing their insults, or whatever. translation: I didn't really learn anything.  But am encouraged to proceed to indoctrinate kids anyway, and I had fun trying to comprehend your "monkey language" (gee you guys talk funny).   Quote (4) No one gets bored contemplating their navels. (or someone else's) translation: well, it sure wasn't boring for ME!   Quote It's a win-win! except for the poor kids he wants to indoctrinate into his cult. really, I encourage all here to re-interpret Dave's behavior from the angle of his motivation for coming here simply to be to gather arguments for deconstruction and obfuscation. He's as much as admitted that IS his motivation, so with that in mind, does what he has posted over the last month make more sense now? does to me. Also, it becomes clear that continuing to try to clarify things for him simply becomes more homework for him to obfuscate our clarifications to better indoctrinate kids. seems all we are doing is aiding and abeting a felon.

afdave Posts: 1621 Joined: April 2006 (Permalink) Posted: May 24 2006,12:56    Yes, 'chalk' not 'chock' ... silly me. airdave.blogspot.com Just kidding about winning already.  I'll give you a little more time :-) More tomorrow morning! -------------- 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

Paul Flocken Posts: 290 Joined: Dec. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: May 24 2006,13:01    Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ May 23 2006,00:07) Quote I bet Dave isn't showing this site to his wife and kids anymore. I find this curious - I just looked at AFDave's blog airdave.blogspot.com and he has removed his AFDave's Creator God Hypothesis entry along with all the associated critical comments.  That's one way to hide the embarrassment I guess.  Do we have another Dave Springer-Spaniel the mad deleter on our hands? Thankyou Occam!!! I've been looking for that. -------------- "The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie--deliberate, contrived, and dishonest, but the myth, persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic.  Belief in myths allows the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought."-John F. Kennedy

sir_toejam Posts: 846 Joined: April 2005 (Permalink) Posted: May 24 2006,13:04    Quote Yes, 'chalk' not 'chock' ... silly me. YAYY US! We got Dave to admit he's silly! WOOT! I claim victory for now and all time, infinity times infinity. nyah nyah! Dave, didn't christ encourage his followers to be childlike, not childish?

Occam's Aftershave Posts: 5287 Joined: Feb. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: May 24 2006,13:18    Holy sh*t! I just look at AFDave's profile on his blog He identifies himself as a '43 year old male Pisces'       Oh Dave, do tell us you believe in astrology, pretty pretty please! I guess when Behe said that astrology qualified as science under the Creto/IDiot definition, he had Missionary AFDave in mind!   (shakes head sadly and chuckles) Damm Dave, you get funnier every day   -------------- "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.

sir_toejam Posts: 846 Joined: April 2005 (Permalink) Posted: May 24 2006,13:32    here's the best thing i found on Dave's blog: Quote posted by Dave Hawkins | 7:11 AM | 0 comments

jeannot Posts: 1201 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: May 24 2006,13:37    Hey, Dave is from Missoury! Is it a coincidence of do Larry and he share a recent common ancestor?

Faid Posts: 1143 Joined: Mar. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: May 24 2006,13:48    "Another win", dave? Man you're a joke. Um, if I'm not mistaken, right after you posted Anderson's baloney (hey, this word is fun), I tried (for the last time) to give you something as incentive to think, like how CRI and Co. use their little word play to lead you in. You then responded like this:       Quote Faid, I actually thought that you guys might have something with the bacteria thing, but since I have read this article by Dr. Anderson, I cannot think of a single thing left where you could possibly say that an organism gains a new function So what are you asking for now? But hey, if you find the time from all your humble christian gloating, browse through the 200+ links I showed you, to see how you and Mr. Anderson once again argue against something that is common and well-established knowledge in Genetics. Just, you know, FYI. -------------- 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."

Drew Headley Posts: 152 Joined: Mar. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: May 24 2006,15:23    AFDave might want to check out the paper I posted on the nylon degrading bacterium as an example of "upward" (a term I think is meaningless) evolution.

Faid Posts: 1143 Joined: Mar. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: May 25 2006,00:06    Oh come on, Drew, that's too easy. That kind of bacteria, like, LOST its alternative reading frame, which totally led to a reduced alternative-reading-framing function. Like, duh. -------------- 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."

afdave Posts: 1621 Joined: April 2006 (Permalink) Posted: May 25 2006,03:32    DISEASE RESISTANT BACTERIA - NO PROOF OF EVOLUTION (STILL) I got some pretty interesting responses yesterday to Dr. Anderson's article showing that disease resistant bacteria offers on proof of macroevolutionary theory.  The responses were basically ... (1) We never said disease resistant bacteria is proof for macroevolution (which is not true at all--see World Book for example) (2) Here go read these links that disprove what you say, Dave (I've never read them because you have to pay for all the articles, but you go read 'em, Dave) (3) What about the old 'nylon-eating' bacteria?  (Team member shoots down argument for Dave) (4) Dr. Anderson is just making his own definition of evolution (yeah, because it's really hard to nail down evolutionists on what their definition is and what is proper terminology) Remember, guys, I deal a lot with what the PUBLIC gets to hear about evolution ... I'll repeat the description from World Book because it is typical of what the public hears. World Book, 1993 edition, "Evolution" entry ...     Quote   Evolutionary theory holds that all species probably evolved from a single form of life which lived about 3-1/2 billion years ago ... The theory of evolution is supported by a vast amount of evidence from many scientific fields.  When a theory is supported by so much evidence, it becomes accepted as a scientific fact.  Almost all scientists consider the theory of evolution to be a scientific fact Keep in mind, the kid reading this is assuming ToE=All life from single celled ancestor=Proven Fact.  The article then sprinkles in a fair amount of truth regarding speciation, etc. and then under "Evidence of Evolution" under the heading "Direct observation of evolution", we read ...     Quote   Other examples of rapid, observable evolutionary change have occurred among certain insects and disease-eating bacteria ... Some disease-causing bacteria have become resistant to antibiotics in a similar way. 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. Before reading this article, I was under the impression that bacterial resistance to anti-biotics might in some way provide evidence for macroevolution. After reading this article, I see that it does not.  I also see that it must be a pretty good article with no obvious gaffes.  The folks here at ATBC jump on obvious gaffes pretty quickly. It's interesting to see that I'm not the only one who drops by and voices concerns like this ... Here's a biochemist and computer programmer named 'skeptic' ...     Quote We are losing the PR battle. Given those assumptions (mine), here's my thoughts: Current evolutionary theory is fatally flawed because we lack the ability to perform experiments, collect data, and make predictions. Can we develop an experiment that can be tested and repeated to reveal the mechanism driving evolution? Random mutation is inadequate as a sole mechanism for diversity. Organisms are much too responsive to the environment for diversity to be driven by random interactions. The environment is much to dynamic to support the slow development required by random mutation. and ...     Quote Its obvious that this [trying to discuss how to salvage ToE] is a waste of time.  Its a shame but very revealing about the current state of evolutionary theory.  Right now it is much more important to defend at all costs then to actually engage in science.  Pity. and ...     Quote 2)but more difficult is the actual mechanics of random mutation, it taken at its smallest component, the substitution of a single AA, it mosts cases that it actually has an effect upon the structure of the protein you have a non-functioning, or reduced-functioning protein.  In the case of an entire gene mutation, now we're talking long odds, you still only have a single protein that may or may not have an effect and when it does it is almost assuredly detremental to the organism.  What we really need is for the random emergence of traits and this may require mutiple proteins, very very long odds. I think this is a source of concern. Yes, skeptic, that it is, but good luck trying to get these guys concerned about it. (Oh ... sorry, I'm not into astrology ... I just didn't realize that putting my birthday in would generate an astrological sign.  Also, Paul Flocken and whoever else goes to my blog ... I don't post there very often ... too busy here at the moment ... right now it just serves as a repository for articles that I want to refer people to.) -------------- 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

Renier Posts: 276 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: May 25 2006,03:55    Quote Before reading this article, I was under the impression that bacterial resistance to anti-biotics might in some way provide evidence for macroevolution. So you agree evolution (on micro scale) is a well established fact? You have a problem with Macroevolution, no? What is your definition of macroevolution? And, allow me a nitpick. Back on the GULO gene. You say the gene was not broken before the fall of man, so that's about 6000 years (in your book), right? So God made a perfect VitaminC gene in all primates, and humans. Then, Adam eats the apple and the gene (in all primates) starts breaking down, in VERY much the same way for all primates and Humans. Correct? The Guinea pig also gets a dose of broken GULO, but in a VERY different way. Okay, I got that. Now, how on earth does your common design argument fit into all this. Was the errors in GULO after the fall the "common design"? So, God designed the error to look the same in all primates (and humans) and designed the error in Gunea pigs (did they also eat of the cursed apple) to look totally different from the one in primates, and humans? C'mon Afdave, you have to admit, it looks like pure BS. It does not take faith to believe this, it takes stupidity.

Drew Headley Posts: 152 Joined: Mar. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: May 25 2006,03:56    Quote (afdave @ May 25 2006,08:32) (3) What about the old 'nylon-eating' bacteria?  (Team member shoots down argument for Dave) Uh, Dave maybe you need to turn on your sarcasm detector. Notice the use of the word "like" in the sentence.

Russell Posts: 1082 Joined: April 2005 (Permalink) Posted: May 25 2006,04:04    Quote Now, how on earth does your common design argument fit into all this. Was the errors in GULO after the fall the "common design"? Geez, Renier. Do try to keep up! Afdave clearly answered that: Quote It may be that the nested hierarchy of living things simply is a reflection of divine orderliness.  It also may be, as Walter ReMine suggests, that nested hierarchy is an integral part of a message woven by the Creator into the patterns of biology.  (See, e.g., ReMine, 367-368, 465-467.)  The point is that the hierarchical nature of life can be accommodated by creation theory as readily as by evolution.  Accordingly, “[i]t is not evidence for or against either theory.” (Brand, 155.) I mean,  could there be clearer, more complete explanation of the nested hierarchy of mutations that characterize the Gulo story? -------------- Must... not... scratch... mosquito bite.

Chris Hyland Posts: 705 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: May 25 2006,04:11    Quote Other examples of rapid, observable evolutionary change have occurred among certain insects and disease-eating bacteria ... Some disease-causing bacteria have become resistant to antibiotics in a similar way. How is this not true? It happens quickly and has an observable phenotype.   Quote Yes, skeptic, that it is, but good luck trying to get these guys concerned about it. Sketpic seems to think that all evolutionary change involves cahnges in amino acids in proteins. I am giving him the benefit of the doubt and assuming that this in an honest error.

argystokes Posts: 766 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: May 25 2006,04:43    Quote (afdave @ May 25 2006,05:32) World Book, 1993 edition, "Evolution" entry ...       Quote   Evolutionary theory holds that all species probably evolved from a single form of life which lived about 3-1/2 billion years ago ... The theory of evolution is supported by a vast amount of evidence from many scientific fields.  When a theory is supported by so much evidence, it becomes accepted as a scientific fact.  Almost all scientists consider the theory of evolution to be a scientific fact Keep in mind, the kid reading this is assuming ToE=All life from single celled ancestor=Proven Fact.  The article then sprinkles in a fair amount of truth regarding speciation, etc. and then under "Evidence of Evolution" under the heading "Direct observation of evolution", we read ...         Quote   Other examples of rapid, observable evolutionary change have occurred among certain insects and disease-eating bacteria ... Some disease-causing bacteria have become resistant to antibiotics in a similar way. 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 Now don't lie about it again. -------------- "Why waste time learning, when ignorance is instantaneous?" -Calvin

sir_toejam Posts: 846 Joined: April 2005 (Permalink) Posted: May 25 2006,04:52    ...aiding and abeting a felon...

argystokes Posts: 766 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: May 25 2006,04:58    [sigh] I suppose that counts too, doesn't it? OK, Dave, forget all that stuff except where I told you not to repeat the lie. -------------- "Why waste time learning, when ignorance is instantaneous?" -Calvin

stevestory Posts: 13407 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: May 25 2006,05:08    Quote DISEASE RESISTANT BACTERIA - NO PROOF OF EVOLUTION (STILL) Disease resistant? What the #### are you rambling about?

guthrie Posts: 696 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: May 25 2006,05:21    Quote (afdave @ May 24 2006,11:31) Quote   Quote For the hard of reading, what actually happens, is that ccontrary to Dr(?) andersons assertion, bacteria that have mutated to have anti-biotic resistance, although they are sometimes less fit in a normal environment than normal, unmutated bacteria, then proceed to mutate back up to the same level of fitness that they were before the original mutation. Yes.  Just go ahead and make a wild assertion to try to plug the new hole in HMS Darwin.  It's no use.  You're going down. Hey!  I've been mindlessly dissed by AFDAve!  I feel almost motivated enogh to go and get myself banned from Dembskis place! I shall just have to go and try and find where I read my wild assertion, or do any of you with literature access have something appropriate to hand?

argystokes Posts: 766 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: May 25 2006,05:23    You know, the ones resistant to phage infection.  I'm sure that's what he's talking about, right?  What I want to know is what are "disease-eating bacteria?" -------------- "Why waste time learning, when ignorance is instantaneous?" -Calvin

BWE Posts: 1902 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: May 25 2006,05:33    Dave I am beginning to see your point. I had a dream last night and in it, a diembodied voice came to me and chastised me for my behavior. I woke this morning and had what might be called an epiphany. I tried to describe it with words but I think i fell short. In the best way I can describe it, The universe is too great to be described by the name universe. If it could be named so simply, it would not be the universe. Heaven and Earth began from the nameless, but the multitudes of things around us were created by names. We desire to understand the world by giving names to the things we see,but these things are only the effects of something subtle. When we see beyond the desire to use names, we can sense the nameless cause of these effects. The cause and the effects are aspects of the same, one thing. They are both mysterious and profound. At their most mysterious and profound point lies the "Gate of the Great Truth". Am I close to your concept? -------------- 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 2006,05:38    Quote (afdave @ May 25 2006,08:32) DISEASE RESISTANT BACTERIA - NO PROOF OF EVOLUTION (STILL) I got some pretty interesting responses yesterday to Dr. Anderson's article showing that disease resistant bacteria offers on proof of macroevolutionary theory.  The responses were basically ... (1) We never said disease resistant bacteria is proof for macroevolution (which is not true at all--see World Book for example) Dave, please for the love of God, get your nomenclature straight. There is no single phenomenon out there that is "proof" of evolution. Saying that disease-resistant (I'm assuming you actually mean antibiotic-resistant) bacteria is not "proof" of evolution is totally unimpressive, because no one thinks it is anyway. I don't care what the World Book says on the subject; not one scientist on this board has or ever will claim that bacterial resistance is "proof" of evolution. You do understand the difference between "evidence" and "proof," don't you? -------------- 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

Faid Posts: 1143 Joined: Mar. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: May 25 2006,06:27    IT'S GOT A TITLE, THEREFORE IT'S TRUE: DAVE'S LATEST IN SCIENCE-SMASHING ARGUMENTS (1) We never said disease resistant bacteria is proof for macroevolution (which is not true at all--see World Book for example) (Can you please show me where it says "macroevolution" in your snippings, Dave?) (2) Here go read these links that disprove what you say, Dave (I've never read them because you have to pay for all the articles, but you go read 'em, Dave) (They're called abstracts, Dave. They're free, Dave. They're more than enough to show you how far everything you say is from contemporary knowledge in genetics, Dave.) (3) What about the old 'nylon-eating' bacteria?  (Team member shoots down argument for Dave) (Are you talking about me, Dave? Please please pretty please tell me you were talking about me, Dave...     ) (4) Dr. Anderson is just making his own definition of evolution (yeah, because it's really hard to nail down evolutionists on what their definition is and what is proper terminology) (Maybe you should read the first pages of your "Prove evolution to me" thread again, Dave... Unless by "proper" you mean "A strawman I can beat up") So, Dave, how about answering my question? If another point mutation makes the bacterium sensitive to rifampin again, according to Mr. Anderson, which function will be lost? BTW, I like the way you honestly, sincerely and Christianly snipped sceptic's assumptions... Don't worry though, I have a hunch he's much more up your alley than you think.   -------------- 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."

jeannot Posts: 1201 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: May 25 2006,06:37    You're right Dave, resitant bacteria are not an evidence for the abiotic origin of life. They are neither an instance of speciation, nor a proof that all living beings come from LUCA. huh... what's your point?

Faid Posts: 1143 Joined: Mar. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: May 25 2006,07:09    Oh and, "Disease-resistant bacteria"? WTF? dave, do you even try to understand what you are arguing against? -------------- 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."

Rilke's Granddaughter Posts: 311 Joined: Jan. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: May 25 2006,07:20    Quote (Faid @ May 25 2006,12:09) Oh and, "Disease-resistant bacteria"? WTF? dave, do you even try to understand what you are arguing against? No.  It's reasonably clear at this point that our friend 2nd. Lt. Dave is * ignorant of science; pretty much all science * unable to reason in any coherent way * a nasty-minded unChristian type who revels in child-abuse * boring It's number (2) I find so interesting: how anyone who has managed to reach the age of more or less adulthood can demonstrate so little ability to construct or understand a logical argument is amazing. I'm not surprised he never made it beyond 2nd. Lt.; I think they require the ability to think for anything higher. And that's why responding to him is such a waste of time: he literally cannot understand the counter-arguments.  Can't.  This isn't a question of willful stupidity; this is a case of actual inability. But he is funny.

afdave Posts: 1621 Joined: April 2006 (Permalink) Posted: May 25 2006,07:29    Yes.  I meant ANTIBIOTIC RESISTANT BACTERIA. I had just read this ... "disease-eating bacteria ... Some disease-causing bacteria have become resistant to antibiotics in a similar way." ...and used the wrong word ... -------------- 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

Rilke's Granddaughter Posts: 311 Joined: Jan. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: May 25 2006,07:36    Quote (afdave @ May 25 2006,12:29) Yes.  I meant ANTIBIOTIC RESISTANT BACTERIA. I had just read this ... "disease-eating bacteria ... Some disease-causing bacteria have become resistant to antibiotics in a similar way." ...and used the wrong word ... Poor Davey, he can't even read, No matter the theistic need, To find some excuse To be dumb and obtuse. His poor brain has all gone to seed. Keep 'em coming, 2nd. Lt. Dave!  Stick up for your God-given right to make a fool of yourself in public!

Pages: (18) < ... 10 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