BubberMiley Posted May 23, 2009 Report Share Posted May 23, 2009 ID theory vs the theory of Evolution, both present their own arguments and rebuttals. Each one trying to refute the other. It's a matter similar to.... HE SAID - SHE SAID. Except one is a scientific theory based on data that have been gathered; the other is based on speculation and presumptions and wishful thinking. Otherwise, you're right. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chuck U. Farlie Posted May 23, 2009 Report Share Posted May 23, 2009 It is almost pointless to argue with creationists - their faith blinders keep them from considering any evidence what-so-ever. If only they would not be hypocritical and not make use of anything that has any involvement with evolutionary theory. If they did so, they would have to reject a lot of modern medicine - including modern antibiotics. Have you ever used antibiotics Betsy? Would you rather the scientists that create modern antibiotics be ID or evolution believers? If you are going to support creationism, then don't have the audacity to make use of antibiotics - and certainly don't use any anti-viral medicine if you happen to get any strain of the flu. http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/a...0_0/medicine_03 This is straight from Berkeley: Understanding evolution helps us solve biological problems that impact our lives. There are excellent examples of this in the field of medicine. To stay one step ahead of pathogenic diseases, researchers must understand the evolutionary patterns of disease-causing organisms. To control hereditary diseases in people, researchers study the evolutionary histories of the disease-causing genes. In these ways, a knowledge of evolution can improve the quality of human life. So Betsy, no more medicine use in your future eh? That would be hypocritical of you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benny Posted May 23, 2009 Report Share Posted May 23, 2009 Have you looked at the title of the thread, or is this just some pathetic attempt at pseudo-legalize. I think I liked betsy's cowardly-yet-arrogant departure much more than the whining tone you're beginning to take. Since your beginning on this thread, you are only whining about our conceptions of science! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
betsy Posted May 23, 2009 Report Share Posted May 23, 2009 Note: Edited #525 to add a few things. I wasn't able to edit a while back. Sorry for the inconvenience. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogOnPorch Posted May 23, 2009 Report Share Posted May 23, 2009 Would you rather the scientists that create modern antibiotics be ID or evolution believers? Two great Doonesbury strips on exactly this subject... http://www.b12partners.net/mt/creationism.gif http://www.synthstuff.com/mt/archives/db060305.gif Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chuck U. Farlie Posted May 23, 2009 Report Share Posted May 23, 2009 Yes, this is exactly how I meant it. I certainly hope that creationists don't go taking any vaccines either - I mean, how hypocritical can you be? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benny Posted May 23, 2009 Report Share Posted May 23, 2009 I certainly hope that creationists don't go taking any vaccines either - I mean, how hypocritical can you be? Vaccines are creations to contravene evolution. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogOnPorch Posted May 23, 2009 Report Share Posted May 23, 2009 Vaccines are creations to contravene evolution. Eh? They are made to induce an immune response. There's more than one type of vaccination, as well. None of them brought to you by the Bible. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benny Posted May 23, 2009 Report Share Posted May 23, 2009 Eh?They are made to induce an immune response. There's more than one type of vaccination, as well. None of them brought to you by the Bible. Christianity is against science mainly when it is interfering too radically with evolution/creation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogOnPorch Posted May 24, 2009 Report Share Posted May 24, 2009 Christianity is against science mainly when it is interfering too radically with evolution/creation. I understand some of you Christian types are against vaccinations...modern surgery...blood transfusions, etc. Pretty stupid. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
betsy Posted May 24, 2009 Report Share Posted May 24, 2009 It is almost pointless to argue with creationists - their faith blinders keep them from considering any evidence what-so-ever. My faith is irrelevant! Instead of using my belief - which I've never denied anyway - as an argument - which is rather silly since it implies the point of this discussion flies over your head - why don't you come up with something relevant as a rebuttal? Just re-read your statement above. Tit-for tat! I can say exactly the same thing to you! Substitute the word "creationist" for "atheist-evolutionists". This is a classic example of the pot calling the kettle black. If only they would not be hypocritical So, who's really being hypocritical? and not make use of anything that has any involvement with evolutionary theory. If they did so, they would have to reject a lot of modern medicine - including modern antibiotics. Have you ever used antibiotics Betsy? Would you rather the scientists that create modern antibiotics be ID or evolution believers? Eh? Awww c'mon....Why would I care if the scientist who created or came up with antibiotic be either ID or Evolution believer? Are you kidding? If you are going to support creationism, then don't have the audacity to make use of antibiotics - and certainly don't use any anti-viral medicine if you happen to get any strain of the flu. http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/a...0_0/medicine_03 That's descrimination! Blackmail! or....arm-twisting! This is straight from Berkeley: Good! You got plus point for venturing out of TalkOrigin! See my next post. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
betsy Posted May 24, 2009 Report Share Posted May 24, 2009 (edited) So some of you guys keep harping about antibiotics....and I was just going to keep on ignoring it....but might as well reply or I'll never hear the end of it. It's being R E F U T E D. Excerpts from... Bacterial Resistance to Antibiotics One of the biological concepts that evolutionists try to present as evidence for their theory is the resistance of bacteria to antibiotics. Many evolutionist sources mention antibiotic resistance as "an example of the development of living things by advantageous mutations." A similar claim is also made for the insects which build immunity to insecticides such as DDT. However, evolutionists are mistaken on this subject too. Antibiotics are "killer molecules" that are produced by microorganisms to fight other microorganisms. The first antibiotic was penicillin, discovered by Alexander Fleming in 1928. Fleming realized that mould produced a molecule that killed the Staphylococcus bacterium, and this discovery marked a turning point in the world of medicine. Antibiotics derived from microorganisms were used against bacteria and the results were successful. Soon, something new was discovered. Bacteria build immunity to antibiotics over time. The mechanism works like this: A large proportion of the bacteria that are subjected to antibiotics die, but some others, which are not affected by that antibiotic, replicate rapidly and soon make up the whole population. Thus, the entire population becomes immune to antibiotics. Evolutionists try to present this as "the evolution of bacteria by adapting to conditions." The truth, however, is very different from this superficial interpretation. One of the scientists who has done the most detailed research into this subject is the Israeli biophysicist Lee Spetner, who is also known for his book Not by Chance published in 1997. Spetner maintains that the immunity of bacteria comes about by two different mechanisms, but neither of them constitutes evidence for the theory of evolution. These two mechanisms are: 1) The transfer of resistance genes already extant in bacteria. 2) The building of resistance as a result of losing genetic data because of mutation. Professor Spetner explains the first mechanism in an article published in 2001: Some microorganisms are endowed with genes that grant resistance to these antibiotics. This resistance can take the form of degrading the antibiotic molecule or of ejecting it from the cell... [T]he organisms having these genes can transfer them to other bacteria making them resistant as well. Although the resistance mechanisms are specific to a particular antibiotic, most pathogenic bacteria have... succeeded in accumulating several sets of genes granting them resistance to a variety of antibiotics.306 Spetner then goes on to say that this is not "evidence for evolution": The acquisition of antibiotic resistance in this manner... is not the kind that can serve as a prototype for the mutations needed to account for Evolution… The genetic changes that could illustrate the theory must not only add information to the bacterium's genome, they must add new information to the biocosm. The horizontal transfer of genes only spreads around genes that are already in some species.307 So, we cannot talk of any evolution here, because no new genetic information is produced: genetic information that already exists is simply transferred between bacteria. The second type of immunity, which comes about as a result of mutation, is not an example of evolution either. Spetner writes: ... [A] microorganism can sometimes acquire resistance to an antibiotic through a random substitution of a single nucleotide... Streptomycin, which was discovered by Selman Waksman and Albert Schatz and first reported in 1944, is an antibiotic against which bacteria can acquire resistance in this way. But although the mutation they undergo in the process is beneficial to the microorganism in the presence of streptomycin, it cannot serve as a prototype for the kind of mutations needed by NDT [Neo-Darwinian Theory]. The type of mutation that grants resistance to streptomycin is manifest in the ribosome and degrades its molecular match with the antibiotic molecule. Finally, there is no example of mutation that "develops the genetic information." Evolutionists, who want to present antibiotic resistance as evidence for evolution, treat the issue in a very superficial way and are thus mistaken. The same situation holds true for the immunity that insects develop to DDT and similar insecticides. In most of these instances, immunity genes that already exist are used. The evolutionary biologist Francisco Ayala admits this fact, saying, "The genetic variants required for resistance to the most diverse kinds of pesticides were apparently present in every one of the populations exposed to these man-made compounds."310 Some other examples explained by mutation, just as with the ribosome mutation mentioned above, are phenomena that cause "genetic information deficit" in insects. In this case, it cannot be claimed that the immunity mechanisms in bacteria and insects constitute evidence for the theory of evolution. That is because the theory of evolution is based on the assertion that living things develop through mutations. The mutations needed for macroevolution have never been observed. No random mutations that could represent the mutations required by Neo-Darwinian Theory that have been examined on the molecular level have added any information. The question I address is: Are the mutations that have been observed the kind the theory needs for support? The answer turns out to be NO!311 http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/embryology_01.html Furthermore, an evolutionary biologists admits to this fact! Edited May 24, 2009 by betsy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
betsy Posted May 24, 2009 Report Share Posted May 24, 2009 (edited) If only they would not be hypocritical and not make use of anything that has any involvement with evolutionary theory. If they did so, they would have to reject a lot of modern medicine - including modern antibiotics. Do you really think Antony Flew never used any antibiotics at all? Do you think this same argument you're using did not come up at all in any of Antony Flew's researches and study - preparing for those debates? Do you really think that a man like Antony Flew did not exhaust all possibilities in order to win in those debates - keeping in mind that while he was involved in those debates, he was on your side. His reputation at stake. And just like you, he was fighting for his Atheistic faith! I don't think anyone would give up their faith without a darn good fight, would you? Especially when you're someone like Flew's calibre and stature. Why would anyone of his reputation do a sudden 180 degree - from believing ardently and publicly debating to prove that there's no god ....to believing and publicly announcing that God exists! Of course, you bet he read about that antibiotic argument...and read the refutation too! He had to. And obviously he agreed with it. Otherwise, he would've used that antibiotc argument as a weapon....and it would've bolstered and strengthened his belief in no-god and Evolution! Well, Antony Flew dropped Atheism in ...2007, I think. And he threw the bombshell on Evolution following that. Therefore he concluded,...."pfffft....baloney!" And threw that same antibiotic argument out, along with Atheism! Edited May 24, 2009 by betsy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oleg Bach Posted May 24, 2009 Report Share Posted May 24, 2009 If you have half a brain you can easily marry the ideas of evolution and creation. I really don't see the big problem here. Those that reject evolution are usually people who have a hate for science and logic. Those that reject creation are those that hate the idea of God - science and logic also. Both have a harsh opinion that is based in negative emotion..the dislike of science and God can not possibly lead to common sense. Neither side is open to the concept and great logic that would dictated that both evolution and creation is the same deal. As mentioned it's all a case of measureing time...7 days to God can be a trillion years - It was man that came up with measuring the duration of time that consitutes tradional creationism - it's plain stupid not to realize that time does not exist in eternity - but it exists to us thus we are confused and can not graspe the big picture. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
betsy Posted May 24, 2009 Report Share Posted May 24, 2009 (edited) If you have half a brain you can easily marry the ideas of evolution and creation. I really don't see the big problem here. All I've stated in this thread is the fact that's emerged: ID theory is far more convincing. And the evidences I've provided supported that. The big problem is that some people don't seem to understand that my personal belief is irrelevant...and they keep bringing up Creationism. It's a way to deflect, you see....through bypassing the real argument. But it does prove though that Evolution is more about Atheism....for some. I know the thread's title is Creationism/Evolution....so I don't know.....maybe I should create another thread? A thread solely devoted to ID vs Evolution? Edited May 24, 2009 by betsy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogOnPorch Posted May 24, 2009 Report Share Posted May 24, 2009 So some of you guys keep harping about antibiotics....and I was just going to keep on ignoring it....but might as well reply or I'll never hear the end of it.It's being R E F U T E D. Excerpts from... Furthermore, an evolutionary biologists admits to this fact! Sigh...Jesus freaks. You can believe in any damn fool thing you'd like. Seriously...go ahead...don't give your kids shots. Pray for polio/smallpox/TB to go away. I won't miss sleep. The problem starts when creationists like yourself want to bring their religious fairy-tale crap into the science classrooms and into the political arena. The folks whose lives are based in either reality or another religion DON"T want it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oleg Bach Posted May 24, 2009 Report Share Posted May 24, 2009 Sigh...Jesus freaks. You can believe in any damn fool thing you'd like. Seriously...go ahead...don't give your kids shots. Pray for polio/smallpox/TB to go away. I won't miss sleep. The problem starts when creationists like yourself want to bring their religious fairy-tale crap into the science classrooms and into the political arena. The folks whose lives are based in either reality or another religion DON"T want it. Jesus freaks? Sorry but there was no Jesus during the creation period - that is about 10 thousand years prior to his fleshly arrival on the planet....I can see why you disrespect the fundies - remember - not all Christians are stupid. Todays Christians give a bad name to those that understand the old movement - and also - those that write off ancient knowledge as some sort of total myth are just as dumb as the fundies. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogOnPorch Posted May 24, 2009 Report Share Posted May 24, 2009 (edited) Jesus freaks? Sorry but there was no Jesus during the creation period - that is about 10 thousand years prior to his fleshly arrival on the planet....I can see why you disrespect the fundies - remember - not all Christians are stupid. Todays Christians give a bad name to those that understand the old movement - and also - those that write off ancient knowledge as some sort of total myth are just as dumb as the fundies. Creationist Christians (Jesus Freaks) ARE stupid. There are few other words that fit. Other Christians are merely deluding themselves rather than attempting to get others to follow their fairy-tale drum-beat. Seriously...if I said I was off to the Temple of Jupiter to sacrifice some goats, you'd think I was mad. But hey...if I'm off to drink the blood and eat the flesh of a Roman era hippy who thought he was 'the son of God'...then by all means. Carry-on. Edited May 24, 2009 by DogOnPorch Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oleg Bach Posted May 24, 2009 Report Share Posted May 24, 2009 Jesus freaks? Sorry but there was no Jesus during the creation period - that is about 10 thousand years prior to his fleshly arrival on the planet....I can see why you disrespect the fundies - remember - not all Christians are stupid. Todays Christians give a bad name to those that understand the old movement - and also - those that write off ancient knowledge as some sort of total myth are just as dumb as the fundies. Here is the difference - at one end of the Christian food chain is the Queen of England - she gets it...at the lower end are the folks like say ---------- in lower Kentucky...no very sophisticated Christians who barely get it - or not at all - You must understand the concepts - they are very very intelligent and profoundly scientific - and based in the high laws of physics - but if you are not inquisitive - or you are lazy and prejudice - You will look at Christ as some myth turning water into wine - which he never did ...why would he do such a silly thing - the miracle was a cool glass of life giving water...translaters of the bible did not get the joke - and even if they did - it served the state better to present magic - which is trickery - Christ did not resort to smoke and mirrors - the church and state did in order to seduce the people through religion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogOnPorch Posted May 24, 2009 Report Share Posted May 24, 2009 As mentioned. You can believe any damn fool thing you'd like. If you think a book written by humans 2000+ years ago is akin to modern science, that's YOUR problem. I take exception when Creationism tries to get involved in government and education...which is their ONLY agenda. They could care less if Oleg believes in 'God'...they just want 'God' to be official state policy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oleg Bach Posted May 24, 2009 Report Share Posted May 24, 2009 As mentioned. You can believe any damn fool thing you'd like. If you think a book written by humans 2000+ years ago is akin to modern science, that's YOUR problem. I take exception when Creationism tries to get involved in government and education...which is their ONLY agenda. They could care less if Oleg believes in 'God'...they just want 'God' to be official state policy. God should not be involved in state policy - because that would demean the concept - God is above state and should never be dragged down to be used by relgious freaks or secularists as a foil to feud and complete for power. There are two books my friend - the old testimonial - which goes back about 4000 years - it is basically old Jewish history - Then there is the new testiment - the Christian writings - that were compiled over a period of about 400 years...some of it is bull shit - and a bit is very brilliant - Christ was akin to a very evolved scientist and he had a fine legalist mind.....out of the NT - I found a few paragraphs that were highly useful - and most was just filler - Now back on track - those whether they be Islamics or Christians who want to insert God into secular governement are just using the God - to fullfill their own agendas --- as if this all mighty power wants to partake in god damned politics? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogOnPorch Posted May 24, 2009 Report Share Posted May 24, 2009 (edited) God should not be involved in state policy - because that would demean the concept - God is above state and should never be dragged down to be used by relgious freaks or secularists as a foil to feud and complete for power. There are two books my friend - the old testimonial - which goes back about 4000 years - it is basically old Jewish history - Then there is the new testiment - the Christian writings - that were compiled over a period of about 400 years...some of it is bull shit - and a bit is very brilliant - Christ was akin to a very evolved scientist and he had a fine legalist mind.....out of the NT - I found a few paragraphs that were highly useful - and most was just filler - Now back on track - those whether they be Islamics or Christians who want to insert God into secular governement are just using the God - to fullfill their own agendas --- as if this all mighty power wants to partake in god damned politics? I own a very nice copy of the Bible dated from the 1890s...gold leaf...the works. Beautiful book. The smallest Bible I own is 1x1.5 inches in size and you need a magnifying glass to read the words. I also own two translations of the Koran, the Bhagavad Gita and numerous other religious texts. Next to them sits a copy of Nietzche's 'The Birth of Tragedy' and 'The Will to Power'. Just beyond that, James Joyce's 'Dubliners'. Further along I note a copy of Sagan's 'Demon Haunted World'. You might notice the evolution...or not. Edited May 24, 2009 by DogOnPorch Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oleg Bach Posted May 24, 2009 Report Share Posted May 24, 2009 I own a very nice copy of the Bible dated from the 1890s...gold leaf...the works. Beautiful book. The smallest Bible I own is 1x1.5 inches in size and you need a magnifying glass to read the words. I also own two translations of the Koran, the Bhagavad Gita and numerous other religious texts. Next to them sits a copy of Nietzche's 'The Birth of Tragedy' and 'Triumph of the Will'. Just beyond that, James Joyce's 'Dubliners'. Further along I note a copy of Sagan's 'Demon Haunted World'. You might notice the evolution...or not. Do you have a Harpers Biblica dictionary? How can you compare Nietzche's self indulgent arrogance to the words of Christ? As for the Koran - it gave me a hopeless head ache. If you want to judge the worth of all religions - which one brought about the most peace and material prosperity - yes there was some violence - but which one gave you the freedom to sit at your computer with a coffee after breakfast and have free speech// It certainly was not Islam - nor was it Judism - and take a look at the Indian sub continent - It did not work out well for them - what they embraced..did it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogOnPorch Posted May 24, 2009 Report Share Posted May 24, 2009 Nietzche only had one worthwhile message. Can you guess what that message is?? Note: "Triumph of the Will" was Leni Riefenstahl's Nazi epic of Hitler's arrival in Nuremberg for the 1938(?) rally...not Nietzche's 'The Will to Power'...my bad. More coffee...slurp. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogOnPorch Posted May 24, 2009 Report Share Posted May 24, 2009 Do you have a Harpers Biblica dictionary? No but I have a first edition 'Dracula' as well as a rawhide bound copy of Pauline Johnson's "Legends of Vancouver" which is also terribly old. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.