another forgery from EVOS

[LorentzHA]

Pennicillian is not effective as so are a growing list of antibiotics today due to the fact that there is genetic resistance within the bacterias dna those without the resistence die out but over time allthat is left is those which had resistance & they eventually dominate & overpower the host. This is true with inseects this is why we must change pesticides every so oft. Aint got a thing to do with eviloution me friend.

Oh you are a sad case. I guess you know more than the researchers, huh? Why is there resistance? YOU HAVE TO BE A TROLL. If you are not, I am moving to England or somewhere sane!! Your ignorance scares me and I have a young child to think about.

 

[Phred]

Pennicillian is not effective as so are a growing list of antibiotics today due to the fact that there is genetic resistance within the bacterias dna those without the resistence die out but over time allthat is left is those which had resistance & they eventually dominate & overpower the host. This is true with inseects this is why we must change pesticides every so oft. Aint got a thing to do with eviloution me friend.

You can't be that stupid, you've just described evolution.

 

[obediah001]

U hurt my 10th grade educated feelins. I really thought U a was lookin up to Archie Bunker there, shows how much I know dont it!

 

[napajohn]

You lie so much it is sick. I said pharmaceutical companies use ET to "get drugs out"????? FALSE, I would not say that because this is hick talk. Those are YOUR words, NOT mine. What I said was, All drug development is based on evolution and that if there was no evolution that there would have never been anything OTHER that penicillin developed because it would work and would always work. I hope you are aware that new antibiotics have had to be developed-Ask yourself, why that is??. This is FACT, I go to med school and it the way it is. My grandmother is well aware of this fact and has been a houswife her WHOLE adult life, BUT, she reads and keeps herself informed.

I have left you link after link from Pub Med. Obviously you refuse to read them-not my problem!!! DO NOT let the facts confuse you, Napa! Stay stong and fight knowledge- you are doing a great job!!

I said paraphrase Lorentz..you go to Med scchool and don't even know the history of penicillin..it was discovered by accident..heres a link Lorentz
http://www.nobel.se/medicine/educational/penicillin/readmore.html
there were no evolutionary methods involved...new antibiotics developed:
some are due to possibly micromutations that may lead to resistance or another possibility is that there exists strains of bacteria that have existed before and were resistant to the drug..heres 1 excerpt from icr

"A new line of research has produced tantalizing results. Evidently, when stressed, some microbes go into a mutation mode, rapidly producing a variety of strains, thereby increasing the odds that some will survive the stress. This has produced some interesting areas for speculation by creationists, but it still mitigates against evolution. There is a tremendous scope of genetic potential already present in a cell, but E. coli bacteria before stress and mutation remain E. coli. Minor change has taken place, but not true evolution.

Furthermore, it has been proven that resistance to many modern antibiotics was present decades before their discovery. In 1845, sailors on an ill-fated Arctic expedition were buried in the permafrost and remained deeply frozen until their bodies were exhumed in 1986. Preservation was so complete that six strains of nineteenth-century bacteria found dormant in the contents of the sailors' intestines were able to be revived! When tested, these bacteria were found to possess resistance to several modern-day antibiotics, including penicillin. Such traits were obviously present prior to penicillin's discovery, and thus could not be an evolutionary development.** "

Besides how do the companies use evolution to develop new drugs..
Duane Gish

("Duane Gish, Ph.D. Biochemistry (ICR)
He has a B.S. in Chemistry from UCLA and a Ph.D. in Biochemistry from the University of California (Berkeley). He spent a total of 18 years in biochemical research; with Cornell University Medical College (NYC), with the Virus Laboratory, U of Cal-Berkley and and on the research staff of the Upjohn Pharmaceutical Company (Michigan). He has published approximately 40 articles in scientific journals")

was one of the heads of the research firms working for
Upjohn Pharmaceutical Company in Michigan and he said they just
used sound scientific principles..in fact he even said that what you just said
is one of EVOS greatest lies perpetuated on the public..he should know look at his resume above
so thats my explanation on this lorentz..No i don't intentionally disregard your pubmed links because i either haven't gotten it (don't read this cite 24/7)
or it may be I have but it has yet to change my mind on this issue.
Glad to know your grandma reads...maybe she can go on this cite and pass that skill among some of your EVO friends

 

[obediah001]

Eviloution is not variation Eviloution say one type of critter will become another given enough time, e.g. the (laughable) dino to bird fairytale. that bacteria is still a bacteria as is that hybrid dog or fruit fly in those exhaustive experiments where they said (HAHA) the reason they could not make the fly evolve was it was at the end of its evolutionary progression. Come on now lets not be pedantic here, lets be intelectually honest.

 

[LorentzHA]

I said paraphrase Lorentz..you go to Med scchool and don't even know the history of penicillin..it was discovered by accident..heres a link Lorentz
http://www.nobel.se/medicine/educational/penicillin/readmore.html
there were no evolutionary methods involved...new antibiotics developed:
some are due to possibly micromutations that may lead to resistance or another possibility is that there exists strains of bacteria that have existed before and were resistant to the drug..heres 1 excerpt from icr

"A new line of research has produced tantalizing results. Evidently, when stressed, some microbes go into a mutation mode, rapidly producing a variety of strains, thereby increasing the odds that some will survive the stress. This has produced some interesting areas for speculation by creationists, but it still mitigates against evolution. There is a tremendous scope of genetic potential already present in a cell, but E. coli bacteria before stress and mutation remain E. coli. Minor change has taken place, but not true evolution.

Furthermore, it has been proven that resistance to many modern antibiotics was present decades before their discovery. In 1845, sailors on an ill-fated Arctic expedition were buried in the permafrost and remained deeply frozen until their bodies were exhumed in 1986. Preservation was so complete that six strains of nineteenth-century bacteria found dormant in the contents of the sailors' intestines were able to be revived! When tested, these bacteria were found to possess resistance to several modern-day antibiotics, including penicillin. Such traits were obviously present prior to penicillin's discovery, and thus could not be an evolutionary development.** "

Besides how do the companies use evolution to develop new drugs..
Duane Gish

("Duane Gish, Ph.D. Biochemistry (ICR)
He has a B.S. in Chemistry from UCLA and a Ph.D. in Biochemistry from the University of California (Berkeley). He spent a total of 18 years in biochemical research; with Cornell University Medical College (NYC), with the Virus Laboratory, U of Cal-Berkley and and on the research staff of the Upjohn Pharmaceutical Company (Michigan). He has published approximately 40 articles in scientific journals")

was one of the heads of the research firms working for
Upjohn Pharmaceutical Company in Michigan and he said they just
used sound scientific principles..in fact he even said that what you just said
is one of EVOS greatest lies perpetuated on the public..he should know look at his resume above
so thats my explanation on this lorentz..No i don't intentionally disregard your pubmed links because i either haven't gotten it (don't read this cite 24/7)
or it may be I have but it has yet to change my mind on this issue.
Glad to know your grandma reads...maybe she can go on this cite and pass that skill among some of your EVO friends

Ugghhhh I do know the history of pen. My DAUGHTER know the history of Pen. Yes, it had to beDEVELOPED. They did not inject the raw molds right into people. An observation was made, testing and developmet.

So typical of you Napa, avoid the tough questiosn with inane comments. You still have not answered why it does not always work. Why new drugs have to be developed.

 

[LorentzHA]

Eviloution is not variation Eviloution say one type of critter will become another given enough time, e.g. the (laughable) dino to bird fairytale. that bacteria is still a bacteria as is that hybrid dog or fruit fly in those exhaustive experiments where they said (HAHA) the reason they could not make the fly evolve was it was at the end of its evolutionary progression. Come on now lets not be pedantic here, lets be intelectually honest.

I was about to post some links but why bother? I have done this for you in the past as have many others here. You refuse to read or learn. You are a hopeless case.

 

[obediah001]

Go on & go to England I bet U'll fit right in there too

 

[Arikay]

This thread is great. Sorry for all the frustration Lorentz, but this thread is very funny. Keep it up everyone.

BTW I have noticed napa has completly dropped the idea that scientists who stop using frauds, when they are discovered, as evidence, is a bad thing. Hmm, I wonder why.

 

[LorentzHA]

I bet Napa likes having Obediah around, Napa looks like Einstein.

 

[obediah001]

I have read so many links sent to me by U Evilotionists they are old hat to me & they still do not pass the test of scientific inquiry; u see evilotion is not science it is a sudo-religous dogma which is like the song says about rose colored glasses which euphamistically & saddly obscure one's ability to see what they are even a lookin at.

 

[LorentzHA]

Go on & go to England I bet U'll fit right in there too

Where do you fit in? What rural backwater are you from?? Yes, I would not mind living in England, while America continues to be dumbed down by people like you! Next time you have strep. throat just ask for good old fashined pen.-Have fun!

 

[LorentzHA]

Sorry for all the frustration Lorentz

No problem. What is really unbelievable, to me, is that on Saturdays I typically take my daughter and a group of little girls out to a movie and for a snack and these kids know more than Obediah!!

 

[Arikay]

Just thought I would point out, if obediah001 ever decidedes to be serious, My challenge still is out there,

Show me an instance where a scientific paper on evolution using a fraud after it has been shown to be a fraud beyond a reasonable doubt.
Next step is to show whether that paper is accepted by evolutionists as truth.


You know, after awhile you start to think that obediah001 is a theistic evolutionist thats just trying to make the creationists look bad.

 

[Larry]

Whoa..another forgery from the EVOS..I thought they were the scientists and the creationists were liars and quote-mongers:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/1248079.stm

"The specimen, known as Archaeoraptor, captured the attention of the scientific world when unveiled by the National Geographic Society, US, in October 1999.

It reportedly came from a site in China's Liaoning Province that has yielded a host of exquisitely preserved early birds.



A reconstruction of how the tiny feathered dinosaur might have looked

With its mix of dinosaur and bird-like features, many palaeontologists believed that Archaeoraptor captured the moment in evolution when dinosaurs were experimenting with flight.

But it later emerged that the tail had been glued on to increase the fossil's commercial value before being sold to a dealer.

The tail turned out to be from a new type of bird-like feathered dinosaur - Microraptor - the smallest, adult dinosaur yet discovered. "

Who discovered, then exposed this forgery?

 

[Arikay]

nah, not england, Scotland. Specifically Edinburgh. Ok, so thats just where I want to move too, rather nice place.

Where do you fit in? What rural backwater are you from?? Yes, I would not mind living in England, while America continues to be dumbed down by people like you! Next time you have strep. throat just ask for good old fashined pen.-Have fun!

 

[Phred]

I have read so many links sent to me by U Evilotionists they are old hat to me & they still do not pass the test of scientific inquiry; u see evilotion is not science it is a sudo-religous dogma which is like the song says about rose colored glasses which euphamistically & saddly obscure one's ability to see what they are even a lookin at.

So let me get this straight... you say that evolution isn't valid because it's religious dogma. Then your religious dogma isn't valid either.

Congratulations... You've thrown the baby out with the bathwater.

 

[LorentzHA]

U hurt my 10th grade educated feelins. I really thought U a was lookin up to Archie Bunker there, shows how much I know dont it!

All the way to 10th grade, huh? Congrats, you did better than I expected! (By the way, for our foreign friends- High School goes to 12th grade in America, you graduate 12th grade at 17-18 years old.)

Do you find it odd that admittedly, you are 2 years short of just a HS education, yet, you argue about topics you know little or nothing about? I find this very peculiar and frankly, a little bit gutsy.

 

[LorentzHA]

nah, not england, Scotland. Specifically Edinburgh. Ok, so thats just where I want to move too, rather nice place.

True, I would love to go to Scotland!! I have been to England several times but never had then time to make it North to Scotland. I guess I am such a Jet Black groupie that I picked England

 

[Larry]

Who discovered, then exposed this forgery?

Disregard that. I see it has already been addressed earlier in this thread.

So to sum this up, the OP author comes across an article that exposes a hoax in regards to a fossil. Not willing to see that it was a hoax played on scientists, and not willing to see that it was scientists who discovered, exposed and dismissed the hoax, the OP author insists on using this as an opportunity to debunk the entire theory of evolution, and discredit the scientific community as a whole.

Is this the gist of it?