Evolution vs. intelligent design: The debate continues

[Stripe]

Ah, you are aware, are you not, that we understand how bacteria become resistance to various antiseptics through evolutionary theory. If we didn't have ET, we wouldn't be able to understand what's happening or know how to conteract it. So even by your bizarre definition of science, you lose.

yes i am aware how bacteria always produce more bacteria. show me some evolution and i'll lose. do it not and i wont be suprised...

and that was NOT a bizarre definition .. it wasnt even a definition. it was a pre-requisite.

 

[Stripe]

Your ignorance is absolutely astounding.

why? because i havent studied evolutionary biology .. or for that matter .. any biology..(insert rhetorical question mark)

it is not my ignorance that should concern you .. it should be my intractability and propensity to observe clearly that you first assault.

 

[One Eyed Jack]

Yes, but your "interpretation" contradicts known facts, hence it is invalid.

My interpretation doesn't contradict any known facts.

That's called losing the argument by avoiding the issue. There IS a relationship between species, all kinds of relationships -- structurally, genetically, ecologically.

Some species are related -- I never denied that. But they're not all related, and creationists aren't obliged to explain a relationship that isn't there.

You can't explain it.

What can't I explain?

I understand why you want to deny the relationships, but regrettably for you, they are observable.

I understand you're trying to set up a strawman. Why don't you address what I actually say instead of inventing arguments for me?

First, plenty of birds live near or on water -- indeed, I suspect the vast majority do.

You're missing the point. Let's try this again. Birds can fly away from a flood -- amphibians can't.

Second, floods don't bury anything. Silt does.

What do you think carries the silt, you moron?

Floods displace and wash things away: birds, amphibeans, people, tyrannasaurs. Then as the water subsides they are buried in silt. You need a refresher course in hydrology.

I don't need it from you.

Keep trying. All you have to do is explain 50 million other species that are disjunct in time and never appear together in the fossil record.

You're assuming a disjunction in time. I assume no such thing, and therefore it's not necessary for me to explain it. I've already explained why some things never appear together in the fossil record.

 

[One Eyed Jack]

Sounds good :thumb:
Except for one little problem.
The creatures seemed to have arranged themselves in these stata quite neatly, and they've managed to sort themselves by radioactive decay rates as well.

Fossils aren't radiometrically dated. Didn't you know that?

Geochronology is not a matter of the rocks being dated by the fossils and the fossils being dated by the rocks

No -- that's called paleontology.

 

[One Eyed Jack]

Ah, you are aware, are you not, that we understand how bacteria become resistance to various antiseptics through evolutionary theory.

You're aware that this resistance comes at a cost, are you not? In the absence of antibiotics, the resistant strains will almost always be outcompeted by the non-resistant ones. How do you explain that with evolutionary theory?

If we didn't have ET, we wouldn't be able to understand what's happening or know how to conteract it.

You might not.

 

[One Eyed Jack]

The old "I'm not wrong I just interpret the evidence differently".

Substitute "denying the evidence" for "wrong" and you might be more accurately describing my position.

 

[Johnny]

why? because i havent studied evolutionary biology .. or for that matter .. any biology..(insert rhetorical question mark)

No, because apparently you haven't studied science in any serious capacity and yet you feel you are in a position to tell us what is and what isn't science based on whatever absurd and arbitrary definition you can come up with. Defining science as something that must benefit the world is one of the most absurd definitions I have ever heard. Neither the creationist and intelligent design community nor the scientific community would ever attempt to defend such a definition. You stand alone. In fact, I challenge you to find any reputable source (and I'm willing to lower my standards to some of the most popular creationist sites) which supports your definition of science. I'd even be suprised if you could find a creationist poster here who has studied the creation/evolution debate who would defend your definition. I'm willing ot bet that not a single one will.

it is not my ignorance that should concern you .. it should be my intractability and propensity to observe clearly that you first assault.

No, your ignorance is of great concern to me. God gave you a brain.

 

[Johnny]

Substitute "denying the evidence" for "wrong" and you might be more accurately describing my position.

You're denying the plainly obvious and logical conclusion the evidence points towards. You and an astrologer may see the same stars and draw conclusions from the same observations. But your conclusions may be scientific, logical, and supportable, while the astrologers may be speculative pseudoscience. The evidence does not in any way support the interpretation you are attempting to draw from it, which is why it was abandoned in the scientific community.

 

[Stripe]

No, because apparently you haven't studied science in any serious capacity and yet you feel you are in a position to tell us what is and what isn't science

i am in a position to make posts on a forum. just like everyone else posting here. my education history can have no relevance other than what i offer of it. your assumption of my knowledge only colours your reading of my posts. it does not change what i believe.

based on whatever absurd and arbitrary definition you can come up with.

i. havent. defined. science.

i dont know how more clearly i can put that. my original post was:

evolution is not science. it does nothing to benefit a person who observes the world. the only impact it has on people is a philosophical one. and even then its conclusions are dire. all its predictions will never be observed, all its conclusions are equivalent to its premises. nothing in the world demonstrates anything resembling a snapshot of what life should be like if distinct species originated from common ancestors. all its pathways are confused and all its evidence is warped. science must benefit me, evolution does not. science must benefit the world, evolution does not. evolution is not science.

"science must benefit me" is a purely selfish assessment. if i see no emotional, physical or philosophical advantage to accepting a theory then i wont accept it. and i wont call it science. thats my stand and ill thank you to represent it honestly.

Defining science as something that must benefit the world is one of the most absurd definitions I have ever heard.

where did you hear it? and why is it absurd? perhaps its not a rigorous analysis on the idea but if science doesnt explain stuff and help people then what good is it?

No, your ignorance is of great concern to me. God gave you a brain

my ignorance is far more extensive than your concern.

 

[soothsayer]

No, your ignorance is of great concern to me. God gave you a brain

my ignorance is far more extensive than your concern.

:darwinsm:

 

[Greenrage]

You're aware that this resistance comes at a cost, are you not? In the absence of antibiotics, the resistant strains will almost always be outcompeted by the non-resistant ones. How do you explain that with evolutionary theory?



You might not.

Focus, focus. You or one of your cohorts in antievolutionary delusion claimed that ET wasn't science because it wasn't "useful." Well, I can't think of anything more useful than antibiotics. And as I've shown antibiotic relies on ET to the extent that it explains resistance.

You didn't and cannot rebut that. So you've attempted a diversion. That's a no no.

Focus, focus.

 

[Greenrage]

My interpretation doesn't contradict any known facts.

Sure it does, since the geologic column has structure, as do the positions of the fossils in it, and they don't comport with a flood.

Some species are related -- I never denied that. But they're not all related, and creationists aren't obliged to explain a relationship that isn't there.

Actually all organic forms on this planet are related. The issue is why are some more closely related than others. ET explains that. Creationism doesn't.

What can't I explain?

Anything about organic forms and their relationship to each other and the environment. That's a pretty miserable record.

I understand you're trying to set up a strawman. Why don't you address what I actually say instead of inventing arguments for me?

I do, and then when you're refuted you change your position. Typical creationist.

You're missing the point. Let's try this again. Birds can fly away from a flood -- amphibians can't.

No, I got it the first time. I'll repeat: NOT ALL BIRDS FLY.

Ok take it from there.

What do you think carries the silt, you moron?

Water. Which isn't deposited until the water subsides, moron. Like I say, you need a hydrology course.

I don't need it from you.

You need it from somebody

You're assuming a disjunction in time. I assume no such thing, and therefore it's not necessary for me to explain it. I've already explained why some things never appear together in the fossil record.

I don't assume it. It's shown by the facts. That's my point, you have to deny facts, I don't. NEXT!

 

[Greenrage]

yes i am aware how bacteria always produce more bacteria. show me some evolution and i'll lose. do it not and i wont be suprised...

and that was NOT a bizarre definition .. it wasnt even a definition. it was a pre-requisite.

Resistance to antibotics developed by bacteria is evolution in action son. Descent with change. ET explains it. Creationism can't.

 

[Stripe]

Resistance to antibotics developed by bacteria is evolution in action son. Descent with change. ET explains it. Creationism can't.

anything could conceivably explain the observation. you derode my not-a-definition of science yet youve fallen over flat when it comes to living up to (what i assume is) your favourite actual-definition.

ET explains the geological record, ET explains the genetic code, ET explains everything it seems. ill not be seen here arguing you on that point. and i still say ET is not science. you might say its completely alien to the notion...

speaking of evolution, i just upgraded to mozilla firefox and it seems natural selection is going to wipe IE from my hard drive...

 

[Greenrage]

anything could conceivably explain the observation. you derode my not-a-definition of science yet youve fallen over flat when it comes to living up to (what i assume is) your favourite actual-definition.

ET explains the geological record, ET explains the genetic code, ET explains everything it seems. ill not be seen here arguing you on that point. and i still say ET is not science. you might say its completely alien to the notion...

speaking of evolution, i just upgraded to mozilla firefox and it seems natural selection is going to wipe IE from my hard drive...

Nope, anything CANNOT explain resistance to antibiotics. Or rather, false explanations will lead to false predictions and hence continued resistance.

ET correctly explains the development of resistance and hence predicts a way to get around it. The prediction has proven true.

You creationsists just keep losing.

 

[Stripe]

Nope, anything CANNOT explain resistance to antibiotics. Or rather, false explanations will lead to false predictions and hence continued resistance. ET correctly explains the development of resistance and hence predicts a way to get around it. The prediction has proven true. You creationsists just keep losing.

wait wait .. forget the argument for a while and explain to me how bacterial resistance can be 'got around'...

 

[Greenrage]

wait wait .. forget the argument for a while and explain to me how bacterial resistance can be 'got around'...

Exactly the way they do it.

(a) by using the anti-biotic following a protocol (i.e., over a period of time with prescribed amounts) to kill off even those strains with some resistance, rather than letting resistance slowly build up in the bacteria gene pool. .

(b) by not overprescribing anti-biotics and thus generating resistance strains in the general population.

This works and this is predicted to work under ET.

You creationists can't make head or tails out of it. It defies your bizarre notion of created organism not subject to adaptation.

Again, you keep losing and don't even seem to realize it. That's what's so funny.

 

[One Eyed Jack]

Sure it does

No, it doesn't. You've yet to show how my interpretation contradicts a single fact.

Actually all organic forms on this planet are related.

This is another unproven assertion. You might believe it religiously, but you don't know that they're biologically related.

The issue is why are some more closely related than others. ET explains that. Creationism doesn't.

I've said this before, and I'll probably have to say it again before it sinks in with you -- creationists aren't obliged to explain relationships that aren't there. We're not trying to explain your theory -- we're trying to explain our own. You don't seem to understand that.

Anything about organic forms and their relationship to each other and the environment.

Creationists have no problem explaining our take on these things. You've just been so intent on trying to force the built-in assumptions of your theory into ours that you haven't asked.

I do, and then when you're refuted you change your position.

How has my position changed?

No, I got it the first time. I'll repeat: NOT ALL BIRDS FLY.

I'm well aware that not all birds fly, but the vast majority of them (especially waterfowl) do.

Water.

Thank you.

I don't assume it.

Sure you do. Fossils don't come with a date stamped on them.

It's shown by the facts.

The facts just show a bunch of dead things buried in the rock. The flood explains perfectly how they got there -- it's exactly what we'd expect to see if such a thing really happened.

That's my point, you have to deny facts,

This is just another one of your empty assertions. I haven't denied any facts.

 

[One Eyed Jack]

Focus, focus. You or one of your cohorts in antievolutionary delusion claimed that ET wasn't science because it wasn't "useful." Well, I can't think of anything more useful than antibiotics.

They're not very useful against these resistant strains, are they? But then again, antibiotics are a part of medical science, with only a tangential connection to evolutionary theory.

And as I've shown antibiotic relies on ET to the extent that it explains resistance.

Just because you've attempted an explanation doesn't mean it's the correct one. I think the creationist explanation works just as well -- in fact, much better.

You didn't and cannot rebut that.

How do you know what I can and cannot do? You want to know what I can do about your smarmy attitude?

 

[Greenrage]

They're not very useful against these resistant strains, are they? But then again, antibiotics are a part of medical science, with only a tangential connection to evolutionary theory.

Diversion alert, diversion alert! It is in some cases, not in others. Point it, when it does work, it works because ET is a valid theory that describes reality. Creationism can't explain the phenomenon.

Just because you've attempted an explanation doesn't mean it's the correct one. I think the creationist explanation works just as well -- in fact, much better.

The facts bear out that is the correct one. That's the difference between creationism and science.

How do you know what I can and cannot do? You want to know what I can do about your smarmy attitude?

Creationism is in fact a failure at explaining resistant strains of bacteria. You accept creationism. Ergo, you can't explain the phenomenon. But ET can. That's the difference.