Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Multi-drug treatments drug-resistant infections have been in use for some years now. Multi-drug treatments for cancer have been researched for some years - the problem, until recently, was the general toxicity of the drugs. But treatments are improving.Until you ToEists learn that microevolutionary changes are random events where the joint probabilities are computed using the multiplication rule, you will make all kinds of mathematically irrational claims about evolution. And you do that to the detriment of those suffering drug-resistant infections and failed cancer treatments.
Of course, multidrug treatments have been used for years. Edward Tatum pointed out the reason why these work in his 1958 Nobel Laureate Lecture. It is the multiplication rule. Why you don't think this rule applies to reptiles and fish is very curious.Multi-drug treatments drug-resistant infections have been in use for some years now. Multi-drug treatments for cancer have been researched for some years - the problem, until recently, was the general toxicity of the drugs. But treatments are improving.
I think that is a good example. The best criticism of climate change has been against the models which in turn force the molders, not just to defend the models, but to improve on their models.At the risk of bringing in a different topic I
understand that climate change has a lot of
models.
I am more or less sure that BAND proponents would agree with you yet none of their hypothesis are supported by empirical evidence.None of your links explain how evolution works while all the real, measurable, and repeatable empirical evidence of evolution coincides with the mathematical models I've presented.
Hmm, Matthew 7:1-5 comes to mind...I left that forum because Swamidass was very unpleasant...
That's the interpretation of the empirical evidence. Why don't the believers in the ToE interpret the Kishony and Lenski experiments? Instead they argue that DNA evolution in bacteria is somehow different than in other replicators. Or they argue that laboratory evidence is somehow different than "real" world evidence. That's right, these experiments are not set up for extinction whereas in the real world extinction occurs 99% of the time. It sure makes believers in the ToE appear to be experimental evidence deniers.I am more or less sure that BAND proponents would agree with you yet none of their hypothesis are supported by empirical evidence.
‘Birds Are Not Dinosaurs’: A Case Study in Science Denial?
Ah, the favorite and only verses that atheists know from the Bible. I'm glad you discovered something important from your in-depth study of the Bible. You should read more from that book.Hmm, Matthew 7:1-5 comes to mind...
You'd be surprised - some atheists here know the bible better than most of the theists. Not myself, although having spent my first 15 years in Christian schooling, I'm not unfamiliar with it.Ah, the favorite and only verses that atheists know from the Bible. I'm glad you discovered something important from your in-depth study of the Bible. You should read more from that book.
You are basically confirming that until you see a bird, likely a modern one, popping out of the a dinosaur egg you will reject the preponderance of evidence and affirm BAND. OK, explain to us lesser beings the empirical evidence for BAND and that it is not science denial?That's the interpretation of the empirical evidence. Why don't the believers in the ToE interpret the Kishony and Lenski experiments? Instead they argue that DNA evolution in bacteria is somehow different than in other replicators. Or they argue that laboratory evidence is somehow different than "real" world evidence. That's right, these experiments are not set up for extinction whereas in the real world extinction occurs 99% of the time. It sure makes believers in the ToE appear to be experimental evidence deniers.
Tell me something Frumious, why is it when someone comes along and says the ToE is mathematically irrational nonsense based on the mathematical and evolutionary experimental evidence that the believers in the ToE respond like it is some kind of violation of a religious tenet?You'd be surprised - some atheists here know the bible better than most of the theists. Not myself, although having spent my first 15 years in Christian schooling, I'm not unfamiliar with it.
Mostly because of your attitude. We understand your probability calculations--despite your constant snotty remarks about our lack of basic math education--but think they are wrongly applied. Any attempt to discuss the matter with you results in more unpleasantness from you but no substantive reply. We also suspect that you are a biblical creationist lacking in candor about your true motives.Tell me something Frumious, why is it when someone comes along and says the ToE is mathematically irrational nonsense based on the mathematical and evolutionary experimental evidence that the believers in the ToE respond like it is some kind of violation of a religious tenet?
So show us how to do the math correctly and prove your religious tenet. You won't.Mostly because of your attitude. We understand your probability calculations--despite your constant snotty remarks about our lack of basic math education--but think they are wrongly applied. Any attempt to discuss the matter with you results in more unpleasantness from you but no substantive reply. We also suspect that you are a biblical creationist lacking in candor about your true motives.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?