Intelligent Design / Evolution

AV1611VET · Apr 2, 2012

CaliforniaSun said:
Ever wonder why faith healers don't heal people with Polio?...

No.

CaliforniaSun said:
Because science did that!

Oh.

Lion Hearted Man · Apr 2, 2012

Thanks, intelligent designer, for the flagellum. Thanks for salmonella, cholera, helicobacter, campylobacter, escherichia, giardia, african sleeping sickness, chagas disease, pseudomonas, leptospirosis, syphilis, lyme disease, and trichomonas.

All of those things would not cause disease in humans without their flagellum. So thanks!

Jro · Apr 2, 2012

AV1611VET said:
People don't understand why I call scientists 'gifts from God' out of one side of my mouth; while dragging science through the dirt out of the other.

You drag things through the dirt with your mouth?

FreethinkerWWJD · Apr 2, 2012

Idscience, I don't think you understand the flagellum thing.

It IS true that if you remove parts of it, it will no longer serve the function of MOBILITY.

But that doesn't mean it has no other use that would be naturally selected for.

They showed you how it could also be used as an infecting needle.

So this needle persisted in the lineage until a few more proteins mutated and suddenly the bacteria has a flagellum! This new ability to be mobile would obviously be naturally selected over a simple needle.

Eventually the generations that only had the needle all died because they couldn't compete with the ones with the new motor and we are left with ones that have the new flagellum.

It's not the difficult to understand.

idscience · Apr 2, 2012

Blayz said:
And I am one of them, AV. 10 genes is enough to beat the entire human system.

Back back to irreducible flagella. Does anyone think IDers realise that motility is a virulence factor?

The role of motility as a virulence fact... [Int J Med Microbiol. 2002] - PubMed - NCBI

Which is to say, bacteria + flagella == disease.

What a great God, hand-craftingly designing disease like that.

Notice everyone,he lost the battle on evidence again, so time to attack the designer, again. This is a common strategy you will see through out ID debate. The anger is with the idea of God, not the evidence itself. Otherwise they would not accept inept constructs like that last video on the flagellum.
The only thing left to do is ridicule. If your being ridiculed, your in a good place, because if there was any real evidence, they would be all over you with it. Even if it is contrived like the hit piece by Nova.

idscience · Apr 2, 2012

FreethinkerWWJD said:
Idscience, I don't think you understand the flagellum thing.

It IS true that if you remove parts of it, it will no longer serve the function of MOBILITY.

But that doesn't mean it has no other use that would be naturally selected for.

They showed you how it could also be used as an infecting needle.

So this needle persisted in the lineage until a few more proteins mutated and suddenly the bacteria has a flagellum! This new ability to be mobile would obviously be naturally selected over a simple needle.

Eventually the generations that only had the needle all died because they couldn't compete with the ones with the new motor and we are left with ones that have the new flagellum.

It's not the difficult to understand.

It is if your a scientist. At the molecular, chemical level what you are suggesting is extraordinary. Evolution can't exlain the TTSS with its dozens of parts either. science hasn't a clue how the flagellum or the TTSS came about. Even by some stretch, your position could be, maybe considered in the mix, vague uncertainties do not destroy, defeat, or refute IC. Yet countless ID propenents are belittled, and ridiculed for something that has no scientific bases. IE; the flagellum IC hypothesis has been refuted.

FreethinkerWWJD · Apr 2, 2012

idscience said:
It is if your a scientist. At the molecular, chemical level what you are suggesting is extraordinary. Evolution can't exlain the TTSS with its dozens of parts either. science hasn't a clue how the flagellum or the TTSS came about. Even by some stretch, your position could be, maybe considered in the mix, vague uncertainties do not destroy, defeat, or refute IC. Yet countless ID propenents are belittled, and ridiculed for something that has no scientific bases.

They showed you a side by side picture of what the flagellum used to be yet you still say

science hasn't a clue how the flagellum or the TTSS came about

You can't see how it could have been used as a needle before the other proteins mutated?

It all boils down to you denying that the proteins could have mutated to allow for rotation and other functions. I'm curious why you think this couldn't happen if given millions of generations of random mutation.

I mean, stranger things have mutated before... Like nylon eating bacteria.

Split Rock · Apr 2, 2012

idscience said:
Even by some stretch, your position could be, maybe considered in the mix, vague uncertainties do not destroy, defeat, or refute IC.

Give us an example of evidence that could potentially refute I.D.

idscience said:
Yet countless ID propenents are belittled, and ridiculed for something that has no scientific bases.

I agree with you. I.D. proponents are belittled and ridiculed for something that has no scientific basis... I.D. Why are we arguing?

idscience · Apr 2, 2012

FreethinkerWWJD said:
They showed you a side by side picture of what the flagellum used to be yet you still sayYou can't see how it could have been used as a needle before the other proteins mutated?

It all boils down to you denying that the proteins could have mutated to allow for rotation and other functions. I'm curious why you think this couldn't happen if given millions of generations of random mutation.

I mean, stranger things have mutated before... Like nylon eating bacteria.

science doesn't operate on maybe it could have's. Certainly, ID is not allowed to say that. In science for something to be possible it has to be demonstrated that it is. Appealing to millions of years and anything can happen is fantasy.

Nylon eating bacteria? nylon was a formulation based on a naturally occurring protein chemical structure. My understanding is it is very close to what that bacteria can already digest. The ability to brake down by products of nylon (not acutal nylon)in water is probably a loss of specificity, not a gain of new information.

It is a long way from one or two steps to 20, when each step has to be selectively advantageous. The big elephant in the room is the TTSS structure. It is analogous as saying, well, we just put this engine into a bicycle frame and you have a motorcycle. ONe step? no the engine needs to be explained.

idscience · Apr 3, 2012

Split Rock said:
Give us an example of evidence that could potentially refute I.D.

I agree with you. I.D. proponents are belittled and ridiculed for something that has no scientific basis... I.D. Why are we arguing?

Experiments showing how multi-component systems can be built step by step by mutation and selection for a start.

Funny!.

Blayz · Apr 3, 2012

AV1611VET said:
People who think like you, Blayz, is the very reason I am the way I am.

Really? I find that quite sad. I am the way I am through my choice, not the forum posted opinions of others. To each his own, I guess.

Instead though, you ... scientists use your God-given gifts against Him and His Word.

And you wonder why I am so 'antiscience'?

So you ... Christians are against the method because of the people. Well, it makes as much sense as the rest of your belief system.

Well, you can keep wondering for all I care.

Your level of care concerning what I wonder about is irrelevant to me. Quite why you choose to share it here escapes me.

Blayz · Apr 3, 2012

idscience said:
Notice everyone,he lost the battle on evidence again

That would be the bit where I actually posted evidence, right?

so time to attack the designer, again.

You opened that door, so to speak. Your major case for an intelligent designer is a virulence factor in disease causing micro-organisms. I mean, seriously.

The anger is with the idea of God, not the evidence itself.

I am no more angry at God than I am at the wicked witch of the West. Do you get angry at Thor? How can anyone be angry at what they consider a mythical being. I will say your misunderstanding certainly is common in the ID debate.

Also, you have not provided any evidence as yet, so you can hardly fault me there.

Otherwise they would not accept inept constructs like that last video on the flagellum.
The only thing left to do is ridicule. If your being ridiculed, your in a good place, because if there was any real evidence, they would be all over you with it. Even if it is contrived like the hit piece by Nova.

You haven't provided a single piece of evidence in favour of ID yet, beyond a you tube vid of some pestilence. That's the flagship of your omnibenevolent deity?

Oh, and my post was for everyone too, since now we appear to be pointing out the bleeding obvious.

idscience · Apr 3, 2012

Blayz said:
So you ... Christians are against the method because of the people. Well, it makes as much sense as the rest of your belief system.

Wow, you Christians? take acception to one post and you dis the whole religion?

IzzyPop · Apr 3, 2012

Split Rock said:
Give us an example of evidence that could potentially refute I.D. ?

Never mind that, I want to see evidence for I.D. Show me an experiment that can demonstrate I.D. and not just attempt to disprove evolution.

idscience · Apr 3, 2012

Blayz said:
That would be the bit where I actually posted evidence, right?

You opened that door, so to speak. Your major case for an intelligent designer is a virulence factor in disease causing micro-organisms. I mean, seriously.

Also, you have not provided any evidence as yet, so you can hardly fault me there.

You haven't provided a single piece of evidence in favour of ID yet, beyond a you tube vid of some pestilence. That's the flagship of your omnibenevolent deity?

Oh, and my post was for everyone too, since now we appear to be pointing out the bleeding obvious.

I understand why your angry.

Blackwater Babe · Apr 3, 2012

5 more pages, still nuthin'.

Blackwater Babe · Apr 3, 2012

IzzyPop said:
Never mind that, I want to see evidence for I.D. Show me an experiment that can demonstrate I.D. and not just attempt to disprove evolution.

Good luck *rolls eyes*

idscience · Apr 3, 2012

IzzyPop said:
Never mind that, I want to see evidence for I.D. Show me an experiment that can demonstrate I.D. and not just attempt to disprove evolution.

I sure can understand why you guys are getting gun shy from the trouncing common descent is taking and why you want to change the subjects so bad.

I thought common descent was a fact as certain as gravity? You guys should be having fun posting paper after paper showing how everything I have been pointing out does work? Why hasn't there been One? Why all the personal attacks on me, my religion, and God?

Surely, you have something to defend your positions with?

I took issue with whale evolution, Boom, that's gone
I took issue with IC and the flagellum, Boom, that's gone

Lots of rhetoric from you all, but nothing in the way of evidence. The best evidence against the flagellum I had to supply to you. What does that say?

IC points to ID,
DNA, information code, language, networks also ID

After 150 years of doing nothing for common descent, it is time to look outside the atheist box. There have been some substantial evolutionary discoveries though, lets name a couple.

4 wings on 2 working, 2 not, on fruit flies
Light moths seem to turn into dark moths
drug resistant bacteria
the big one, nylon eating bacteria

None of the above have anything to do with common descent anyway. Not bad for 150 years of evolution only research.

Well, there is also the mess the phylogenetic tree (trees) are in too. stasis in the fossil record, fake human transitions, fake whale transitions, living fossils, and amusing explanations like "stabilizing selection". Impressive, how about Junk DNA being the biggest mistake in the history of biology?

"From July 6 - 11 the worlds leading geneticists gather in Melbourne for the 50th anniversary of Watson and Cricks discovery of the structure of DNA. Right in the midst of this event, Genetic Congress 2003, Catalyst reveals the extraordinary mistake made by the vast majority of the genetics community - the failure to recognise the vital importance of so-called Junk DNA." (ABC television)

150 years and still not one piece of empirical evidence for common descent. Certainly non on this thread, just hopes and faith time can do it, even if population genetics says it cannot. Lots to be proud of and support there, no wonder you want to get off the subject. I would too with a track record like that.

Ana the Ist · Apr 3, 2012

I'm no scientist or evolutionist but it seems to me a very basic problem has occurred. Shouldn't god be proven to exist first before imposing the possibility that he had a hand in the creation of life. Does it make logical sense to create an entity to answer these questions (the origin of life) then use the origin of life as proof the entity exists?

It seems to me that its a particular type of circular logic. God created all life, therefore I know god exists because there is life.

idscience · Apr 3, 2012

Blackwater Babe said:
Good luck *rolls eyes*

I would like to answer you but I wouldn't want to get reported again. Seems there are those here who can dishout what they like but are pretty soft themselves.

Intelligent Design / Evolution

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Eternal Newbie

Jro

Guest

Newbie

Regular Member

Regular Member

Newbie

Conflation of Blathers

Regular Member

Regular Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Regular Member

I wear my sunglasses at night...

Regular Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Regular Member

Aggressively serene!

Regular Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency