Rejecting evolution with science...

[Techne]

I like to do the same for the flat earth society , flatards. Admittedly its not as eloquent as creotards.

So you don't think it is an insult (against the rules of the forum btw) and offensive to label creationists (like myself) as retards?

 

[HapticSimian]

So you don't think it is an insult (against the rules of the forum btw) and offensive to label creationists (like myself) as retards?

Haven't we done this? It's reserved for the 6,000 year crowd; you know it, I know it, we all know it. Creotards are the creationist equivalent of Afrikaans-speaking folk who have blue gonads dangling off their bakkies' tow bars.

 

[Unhappy1]

So you don't think it is an insult (against the rules of the forum btw) and offensive to label creationists (like myself) as retards?

Yeah im not getting into a discussion of definitions with you, you know full well which type of creationists this is aimed at. Yes i think those types of creationists are dumb , just like those that believe the earth is flat. The intention is not to make it a personal thing but instead to ridicule the idea.

 

[Techne]

Haven't we done this? It's reserved for the 6,000 year crowd; you know it, I know it, we all know it. Creotards are the creationist equivalent of Afrikaans-speaking folk who have blue gonads dangling off their bakkies' tow bars.

Yeah, I thought we were over this too and that we agreed that creationist is anyone that thinks creation is true and not necessarily limited to YECs.

 

[Techne]

Yeah im not getting into a discussion of definitions with you, you know full well which type of creationists this is aimed at. Yes i think those types of creationists are dumb , just like those that believe the earth is flat. The intention is not to make it a personal thing but instead to ridicule the idea.

Perhaps try YECreotard...

 

[HapticSimian]

Yeah, I thought we were over this too and that we agreed that creationist is anyone that thinks creation is true and not necessarily limited to YECs.

'Course we're over it, unless you're choosing to take offence at something not directed at you? A creotard would never even have heard of Eddie Fizzpop.

 

[Techne]

'Course we're over it, unless you're choosing to take offence at something not directed at you? A creotard would never even have heard of Eddie Fizzpop.

Language matters... So does spelling .

 

[DrJohnZoidberg]

So you don't think it is an insult (against the rules of the forum btw) and offensive to label creationists (like myself) as retards?

You're not a YEC are you? There is nothing wrong with a religious person believing in their god being the creator, but it is an issue when people reject science based on their religious beliefs (YECs) - these people are the creotards.

 

[Techne]

You're not a YEC are you? There is nothing wrong with a religious person believing in their god being the creator, but it is an issue when people reject science based on their religious beliefs (YECs) - these people are the creotards.

So... YECreotard it is from now on . This prevents people from being insulting and offensive to ALL creationists. Glad we got that out of the way.

 

[DrJohnZoidberg]

So... YECreotard it is from now on . This prevents people from being insulting and offensive to ALL creationists. Glad we got that out of the way.

Let's just say you must be both a creationist and a retard (colloquial definition).

 

[Unhappy1]

Perhaps try YECreotard...

Sigh Techne , im not going to label things into oblivion like that. We have told you its not directed at you so lets just move along shall we?

 

[Techne]

Sigh Techne , im not going to label things into oblivion like that. We have told you its not directed at you so lets just move along shall we?

Let's just say you must be both a creationist and a retard (colloquial definition).

Or let's all just NOT label each other as "insert whatever"-tards... Done.

 

[DJ...]

I'm gonna put this here as well as the other thread as I think it has bearing on both. A little context - discussing macro vs micro evolution and why the mechanism distinction is merely in the minds of creotards, as science merely uses it as a way to refer to scale.

____________________________________________________________________

What's more, artificial speciation experiments prove that these small changes result in speciation. It was proposed, tested, observed and analysed to be true in multiple organisms, such as the famous e-coli experiment for which there exists in excess of 50,000 new generations which all show genetic mutations and evolution in action. Ergo we know that many small changes result in new phenotypes and large changes overall. To deny it is simply ridiculous. Another interesting bacteria is the nylon eating bacteria. Nylon is a man-made compound, and a recent one at that. The nylon-eating bacteria can only consume nylon - the enzymes they utilise are unique to them, and cannot break down any other known substance, and if it can, that substance forms no part of their ecosystem. The nylon-eating bacteria is the direct result of evolution in action.

And before Creotards rage in like a bull in a china shop, bacteria are tested because of their short reproduction cycles, meaning that multiple generations can be reproduced in a short time-frame. The very same principles apply to humans, albeit on a longer scale as our reproduction cycles are far longer than that of bacteria. It is simply implausible to test this on humans, but it is rather imbecilic to state that the same changes do not take place in humans, especially when evolution theory is able to predict what we are likely to find in the fossil records, and then go on to do so. Additionally, if you reject evolution, then please explain what mechanisms of a 23 base pair chromosome structure prevents these changes but allows for them in all other combinations?

We know that evolution takes place. If you reject evolution, then I urge you to try to take Methicillin to treat your next bacterial infection. Methicillin was an effective anti-biotic for decades and treated a broad spectrum of infections. That was until it began to somehow lose its efficacy. The bacteria evolved after exposure to Methicillin. Minor changes to the bacteria's DNA made it more or less resistant. Those that were less resistant died off but those that were more resistant lived on and replicated this genetic change into their "offspring". These more resistant strains now began to flourish until they were effectively the only strain left.

I'm sure you've heard of MRSA This is how it's name is derived. MRSA stands for Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus, because of the evolution of the Staphylococcus bacteria to eventually become resistant to the most popular penicillin based anti-biotic at the time.

Now you want to tell me that evolution is nonsense? Then go look up the various vestigial organs and structures in the animal kingdom, particularly in the ape and human kingdom. Then look up the ape genetic mutation on chromosome 2 of human DNA with regards to the vestigial centromere that was predicted by evolutionary biologists. Evolution could only be true if there had been a fusion of 24 base-pair ape chromosomes. Guess what - it is there, as predicted. It has been studied in depth. It shows common descent from apes, clearly showing evidence for natural selection, and in fact speciation. If there was a god, why would he leave all of these vestigial structures in the animal kingdom? It makes no sense whatsoever. The only explanation that can predict is evolution and subsequently tested with science. No science has been able to prove it untrue yet, and it would have to be a real whopper of a revelation considering the overwhelming evidence proving evolution on multiple scales of measurement.

Evolution exists. It simply cannot be refuted...

 

[porchrat]

So why paint with such a broad brush by labeling creationists as retards?

I didn't. Not all creationists are retards. I don't know where you got the idea that I was using that label for all creationists.

If you aren't what I term a retarded creationist then the label doesn't apply to you. Nowhere did I state that all creationists are retards.

Someone is a little sensitive

 

[porchrat]

Yeah, I thought we were over this too and that we agreed that creationist is anyone that thinks creation is true and not necessarily limited to YECs.

When I use the term I am usually referring to the fundamentalist YEC nutjobs. After all these years you should know that by now.

It isn't incorrect to use it in that manner. Oxford English Dictionary on "creationism":
"the belief that the universe and living organisms originate from specific acts of divine creation, as in the biblical account, rather than by natural processes such as evolution."

Seems to me that by that definition you don't qualify as subscribing to creationism either as you believe that creation occurred through the process of evolution.

 

[Techne]

snip

1) Macro and micro evolution are valid scientific distinctions and demands a proper definition for the concept of "species". The mechanisms for macro and micro evolution are likely the same. Live with it, don't live with it.
2) Lenki's bacteria WERE capable of digesting citrate, they just could not import it from the extracellular environment. They also have many symporter channels to import other molecules with similar properties to citrate (e.g. Tartrate or alpha-ketoglutarate). So it is most likely a change in these proteins that resulted in citrate being imported. Nothing major really although very interesting and shows evolution happens.
3) The nylon bacteria already HAD a beta-lactamase protein with minimal nylon digestion capability because... beta-lactamases break down amide bonds like the one found in nylon. Evolutionary changes in the enzymes made the enzymes slightly more efficient at digesting nylon. Also nothing major really although very interesting and also shows evolution happens.
4) What is this nonsense about vestigial organs and their relationship to the concept of God? Surely you are not trying to use the observation of vestigial structures to try and argue that creation or God is false lol?

 

[DJ...]

Concatenation of two words does not imply that either of the concatenated words are automatically described by the concatenated result. Can we move along now, please?

 

[porchrat]

So... YECreotard it is from now on . This prevents people from being insulting and offensive to ALL creationists. Glad we got that out of the way.

No I'm going to continue using the term creotard thanks. It isn't directed at you and you have now been made explicitly aware of that. (needlessly IMO as all you needed to do was do a quick Google on the term to see that it wasn't directed at you but apparently that is too much effort)

 

[Techne]

When I use the term I am usually referring to the fundamentalist YEC nutjobs. After all these years you should know that by now.

It isn't incorrect to use it in that manner. Oxford English Dictionary on "creationism":
"the belief that the universe and living organisms originate from specific acts of divine creation, as in the biblical account, rather than by natural processes such as evolution."

Seems to me that by that definition you don't qualify as subscribing to creationism either as you believe that creation occurred through the process of evolution.

I don't think you know how I see evolution and creation and why I think these two concepts are not in conflict :erm:. If you are really interested in understanding my point of view, send me a PM.

 

[porchrat]

Concatenation of two words does not imply that either of the concatenated words are automatically described by the concatenated result. Can we move along now, please?

Indeed. Moving on.