Rejecting evolution with science...

porchrat said:
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)
Click to expand...
Err, or you can just NOT label people as "insert whatever"-tards. Simple really.
 
Techne said:
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.
Click to expand...

36492627.jpg
 
Techne said:
Err, or you can just NOT label people as "insert whatever"-tards. Simple really.
Click to expand...
As I said I'm not. It is a very specific term to refer to people that behave in a very specific manner.

Learn to use Google. Look the term up. (you should have done this from the beginning instead of kicking up a stink over nothing)
 
Last edited:
porchrat said:
As I said I'm not. It is a very specific term to refer to people that behave in a very specific manner.

Learn to use Google. Look the term up.
Click to expand...
Just to be clear here, when you say "Thanks for running away scared creotards" you don't think people might find it offensive and/or insulting and that it is ok to say that?

porchrat said:
Meh not feeling up to making another one. Frankly I just like posting pictures of Admiral Ackbar. He looks so funny.
Click to expand...
Are you interested to understand my opinions before talking about my opinions? If so, you are still welcome to PM me.
 
Techne said:
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.
Click to expand...

You are repeating what I said, albeit in more detail. What's there to live with?

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.
Click to expand...

More detail, thanks...

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.
Click to expand...

Do you believe that there was a frameshift mutation of the existing protein? Interesting that the beta lactamase is also a fundamental component in the Staphylococcus issue, but in that case the mutations were completely different, but effective due to a completely different set of circumstances and environment. Evolution is awesome...

Either way, same thing in a little more detail, thanks. It certainly is fascinating stuff. I look forward to reading the creationists' objections to these...

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?
Click to expand...

lol I see them as arguments for an imperfect god lol

LOL

ROFL

We can do this all day if you like? lol
 
Last edited:
DJ... said:
Do you believe that there was a frameshift mutation of the existing protein? Interesting that the beta lactamase is also a fundamental component in the Staphylococcus issue, but in that case the bacteria found a completely different way to mutate.
Click to expand...
It is likely not a frameshift mutation (as described in one of the older articles in the 1980s) but happened in a manner similar to the other whereby mutations merely increased its efficiency.

DJ... said:
Either way, same thing in a little more detail, thanks. It certainly is fascinating stuff. I look forward to reading the creationists' objections to these...
Click to expand...
I don't have an objection :). Don't know about the others...

DJ... said:
lol I see them as arguments for an imperfect god lol

LOL

ROFL

We can do this all day if you like? lol
Click to expand...
You do? Oh dear :erm:. Either way, it is not empirical science and one has to ask why you try to slip that into this section and moan when others do it ....
 
Last edited:
Techne said:
You do? Oh dear :erm:. Either way, it is not empirical science and one has to ask why you try to slip that into this section and moan when others do it ....
Click to expand...

Because it ties in with the motives of those arguing against evolution. The post itself was a copy of one I wrote in a creationist specific thread btw...

EDIT: lol
 
DJ... said:
Because it ties in with the motives of those arguing against evolution. The post itself was a copy of one I wrote in a creationist specific thread btw...

EDIT: lol
Click to expand...
Doesn't matter if it ties in with their motives or not, either it is a useless argument for or against evolution and God. I though you knew that.
 
Techne said:
Doesn't matter if it ties in with their motives or not, either it is a useless argument for or against evolution and God. I though you knew that.
Click to expand...

I am of the opinion that flawed design implies an imperfect designer and can therefore hold as an argument against the basis for the characteristics espoused to be intrinsic in the god of Abrahamic religions. Perhaps I needed to be more specific...
 
DJ... said:
I am of the opinion that flawed design implies an imperfect designer and can therefore hold as an argument against the basis for the characteristics espoused to be intrinsic in the god of Abrahamic religions. Perhaps I needed to be more specific...
Click to expand...

Yep, unfortunately Techne when you accept that evolution is at play you must also accept that it is far from a perfect process. You cannot deduce from this that there is no creator but you can deduce that the creator cannot be perfect and all knowing otherwise he would have used a different system that wouldn't cause flaws in design later on.
 
DJ... said:
I am of the opinion that flawed design implies an imperfect designer and can therefore hold as an argument against the basis for the characteristics espoused to be intrinsic in the god of Abrahamic religions. Perhaps I needed to be more specific...
Click to expand...
DrJohnZoidberg said:
Yep, unfortunately Techne when you accept that evolution is at play you must also accept that it is far from a perfect process. You cannot deduce from this that there is no creator but you can deduce that the creator cannot be perfect and all knowing otherwise he would have used a different system that wouldn't cause flaws in design later on.
Click to expand...

I suppose both of you think that:
1) It is logically impossible for a perfect being to create a less than perfect creation.
2) It is also logically possible for a perfect being to create everything as perfect.

It of course depends on how you define "perfect".

They way I see it (and how I view the concept of "perfect"), both 1) and 2) are false, so I don't really see a problem.
 
Techne said:
I suppose both of you think that:
1) It is logically impossible for a perfect being to create a less than perfect creation.
Click to expand...

No, rather pointless instead. Further confirming my point of view...

Techne said:
2) It is also logically possible for a perfect being to create everything as perfect.
Click to expand...

I don't see how a being impervious of fault could logically create something faulty...
 
DJ... said:
No, rather pointless instead. Further confirming my point of view...
Click to expand...
Sorry, I don't quite get what you are trying to say.

DJ... said:
I don't see how a being impervious of fault could logically create something faulty...
Click to expand...
What is the difference between this statement and statement number 1) above?
 
Techne said:
Sorry, I don't quite get what you are trying to say.
Click to expand...

I believe that a design that results in vestigial structures is not a perfect design. The process is rather flawed, especially in many biological cases. The only argument here is "one cannot pretend to understand god's motives"...

What is the difference between this statement and statement number 1) above?
Click to expand...

You asked me if it is logically impossible, I stated of course not, however it is pointless to do so within the frames of reference of a perfect design. The second answer helps to clarify, in that Abrahamic religions claims that their god is impervious to fault, whereas it appears that vestigial structures are quite faulty in and of themselves...
 
Last edited:
But we've now turned an entire thread on its head. Instead of using science to disprove evolution, we're now using science to discuss the merits of religion. Not the intention of this thread and not going to continue it in here...
 
Last edited:
Techne said:
Just to be clear here, when you say "Thanks for running away scared creotards" you don't think people might find it offensive and/or insulting and that it is ok to say that?
Click to expand...
I suppose some people might take offence. People often take offence at having their faults pointed out and, for example, how you took offence at a term not at all directed at you because you didn't bother to look the term up. None of that is my problem.

I'm sure many people find many of the things I say offensive. If I had to refrain from speaking every single time I said anything because someone might get offended then I would never be able to voice any criticism on any topic ever.


Are you interested to understand my opinions before talking about my opinions? If so, you are still welcome to PM me.
Click to expand...
36492627.jpg
 
DJ... said:
But we've now turned an entire thread on its head. Instead of using science to disprove religion, we're now using science to discuss the merits of religion. Not the intention of this thread and not going to continue it in here...
Click to expand...

Lol. Techne is roping us in slowly :D

well-played-sir-well-played-indeed.jpg
 
DJ... said:
I believe that a design that results in vestigial structures is not a perfect design. The process is rather flawed, especially in many biological cases. The only argument here is "one canot pretend to understand god's motives"...
Click to expand...
Yes yes, we both agree that creation is not perfect irrespective of vestigial structures. Christians agree (fallen etc.), atheists agree. Does this pose a problem for the existence of a perfect being that created this? Logically, I don't see a problem.

DJ... said:
You asked me if it is logically impossible, I stated of course not, however it is pointless to do so within the frames of reference of a perfect design. The second answer helps to clarify, in that Abrahamic religions claims that their god is impervious to fault, whereas it appears that vestigial structures are quite fault in and of themselves.
Click to expand...
I don't think it is logically possible for a perfect being to create everything that undergoes change as perfect. So I don't see a problem for how a perfect being can create less that perfect things that undergo constant change. In fact, that seems to be the only logically possible solution.

If you really wish to continue, send a PM.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X