Sounds like magic. Show us something "emerging from the earth."
-
This is a new section being rolled out to attract people interested in exploring the origins of the universe and the earth from a biblical perspective. Debate is encouraged and opposing viewpoints are welcome to post but certain rules must be followed. 1. No abusive tagging - if abusive tags are found - they will be deleted and disabled by the Admin team 2. No calling the biblical accounts a fable - fairy tale ect. This is a Christian site, so members that participate here must be respectful in their disagreement.
Bacterial resistance to antibiotics- what is the Creationist explanation?
- Thread starter chair
- Start date
Sounds like magic. Show us something "emerging from the earth."
Right Divider
Body part
A silly wikipedia article? LOL
Never once have I mocked science... only your cartoonish version of it.
Neither is life magically springing up from non-life.
OUT OF CONTEXT as per usual when an unbeliever pretends to know or use scripture.
If you won't believe the One that created all things, you will continue to wallow in your confusion.
Last edited:
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
See chair's #104 above.
Your creationism is stuck in 1976. Here are two means by which evolution could be falsified:
- There are no bunny rabbit fossils in Precambrian rocks: the oldest rabbit fossils are 53 million years old, hundreds of millions of years after the Cambrian. Precambrian rabbit fossils would be a serious blow to evolution by natural selection, as would many other examples of fossil patterns out of geological sequence.
- The phylogenic tree you make from comparing DNA is the same phylogenic tree you get from the work of comparing fossil morphology, which is the same phylogenetic tree you can make from endogenous retrovirus patterns. If there was no correlation between these three entirely independent lines of study, then common descent would be disproved.
Stuart
Stuu: Your 'valid origin theory' is not a theory in the scientific use of that word.
1. Breathing into dirt (Genesis 2.7)
2. From a man's rib (Genesis 2:22)
3. Knowing and begatting (Genesis 4:1) - fair enough, but at the age of 130?
4. Apparently conjuring from nothing (Genesis 4:17)
Stuart
I remind you of my point about hypocrisy. Humans are produced by four different means in the Judeo-christian scriptures. What magic is this?
1. Breathing into dirt (Genesis 2.7)
2. From a man's rib (Genesis 2:22)
3. Knowing and begatting (Genesis 4:1) - fair enough, but at the age of 130?
4. Apparently conjuring from nothing (Genesis 4:17)
Well then, how about your out-of-context usage of the word 'theory'?
Exactly how I feel about the way Young Earth Creationism affects its perpetrators and its victims.
Stuart
I acknowledge chair's reply #104 as a fairly comprehensive demonstration of varying outcomes. Regarding other aspects of your reply I think we would need a definition of 'predictably' and have some idea of how different a 'new environment' would be. There are some environments that are so different that you could predict death to all members of the cultured population, but I don't think you mean that. So, 'new' in what ways?
Regardless of that I would be interested to read an abstract or paper that contradicts this in line with your claim above. In other words, what evidence can you cite that contradicts random mutation with natural selection as the central mechanism for speciation?
Stuart
Looks like islam is going to be doing ok.
One of the problems with making such predictions is that religion is influenced by both inherited and memetic factors, so while you can make projections that 'take into account the current size and geographic distribution of the world’s major religions, age differences, fertility and mortality rates, international migration and patterns in conversion', this Pew research appears to be using only current trends to model the future, and they acknowledge this in some detail. Certainly, current trends are far from irrelevant, but they don't appear in this work to have a causal mechanism for the drastic reduction in christianity in the United States or in Europe.
It appears pretty obvious that christianity is in fairly sharp decline in developed countries, and islam (and Catholicism) are gaining fast in the poorest and least stable countries. So what happens if, say, young people get the ascendancy (something like the Arab Spring, but more sustained) and human rights get taken seriously and oppression of non-belief reduces in the islamic world? It could be that the patronising assumption that muslim parents automatically give birth to muslim children turns out to be wrong.
It could also be that exponential population growth makes the planet's resources even more limited in which case standards of living will fall and religious adherence will rise even more than predicted as a proportion of the population. I would have thought this would not be the mechanism most christians would want to be the evangelical factor.
Stuart
This article doesn't refute what I said, it just asserts that evolution is what has happened without explicitly testing the differences between our ideas.
It says: "After about 20,000 generations, one of the 12 cultures also evolved the ability to metabolise citrate in addition to glucose, giving it another food source."
However, it is not explicit about how this happened. Did that culture get exposed to unique conditions?
From the article:
The following afternoon he took a sample of the resulting bacteria solution, put it in a new flask with identical conditions, and repeated the experiment... for the next three decades..."Together, our results demonstrate that long-term adaptation to a fixed environment can be characterised by a rich and dynamic set of population genetic processes, in stark contrast to the evolutionary desert expected near a fitness optimum," the researchers write in Nature.
It's worth mentioning that while the particular mutations leading to an increase in fitness in a population are not predictable, the kinds of adaptations are predictable. Bacteria exposed to an environment rich in a particular substance tend to evolve the ability to utilize that substance, even if the mutations that cause this adaptation will vary in difference tests.
You've been misled:
As part of the study, the research team has examined data on more than 2,000 MRSA-positive patients across East England for more than a year. The experts have also sequenced the DNA of at least one MRSA strain from 1,465 participants. The scientists have been able to detect up to 173 different outbreaks or transmission clusters with 598 patients. (Related: Superbug apocalypse rapidly approaching as nearly one-quarter of infections now UNTREATABLE with first line antibiotics.)
Likewise, the findings have demonstrated that 118 transmission clusters have involved hospital contacts alone, while 27 clusters have entailed community contacts alone and 28 clusters combined both types of contact. The researchers have also detected MRSA outbreaks in places outside the hospital including the community, surgery facilities, homes, and places in between.
https://www.naturalnews.com/2017-10...biotic-resistant-superbug-spreading-wild.html
The reason why should be simple for anyone who wasn't sleeping in high school biology, but if you want me to spell it out I can.
Technically, these would be falsifications of common descent, which is a consequence of evolution, not evolution. To falsify evolution, one would have to show that offspring do not vary in genome from their parents. It's like falsifying gravity.
Right Divider
Body part
Your atheism does cause you problems with the supernatural. Perhaps you'd like to disprove the supernatural scientifically. That would be fun.
That was an incredibly dense thing to say.
You've already shown that you have thinking and feeling problems, so I don't feel too bad about that.
It is not evolution it is part of the structure of life. Just as a woman's immunities in her milk are passed onto her nursing child the bacteria are passing their immunities onto their children.
If a bacteria lived longer then average 12 hours say for 20 years then these immunities might fade.
The same thing can be said about pesticide resistant bugs. If their life span was longer then the resistance might fade.
The immunity a mother passes on to her child is passive immunity; gamma globulin molecules tuned for specific antigens. That is quite different than passing on genes for immunity, which is what happens in bacteria. That doesn't fade with tim.
No. Pesticide resistant insects also have genes for pesticide resistance, which will stay with them as long as they live.
Alate_One
Well-known member
Probably though, I'd say to some extent that's the fault of the political positions of the adherents, not the beliefs themselves. In which case I'm really not bothered by the loss of "believers" who were really just hanging around for conservative politics' sake.
I agree with you there. But again it's the fault of not just the Christians but all developed nations that are refusing to address the problems they're creating. So there's that.
Then the change certainly involves degradation of genetic integrity.
Like I say, your sources all use the language of evolution without addressing the challenges.
I don't think you have established that any such thing exists, so there's not much to disprove. But the burden of proof is not on me. How do you justify your hypocritical accusation of magical science when there are four ways of making humans in scripture, with no mechanism to explain three of them, and with No.3 absurd as it is described?
Stuu: Well then, how about your out-of-context usage of the word 'theory'?
It is pure hypocrisy on your part, I'm sorry to say. You cannot tell other people they are equivocating with language use when you do the same yourself.
Stuart