What if evolution was part of creationism?

[SmarterThanHick]

The genesis creation account says flowering and seeded plants came on "day" 3, and sea life came on "day" 5.

That's wrong. Flowering and seeded plants were WAY after fish.

And it says fish and birds were created at the same time, then land animals after. That's also wrong since birds developed from reptiles.

Or, they just guessed. And to repeat... they guessd wrong.

wow how did I completely miss the order being wrong? geez... I'm getting rusty. nice catch

 

[JD_2B]

Then prove to me that my logical conclusions are illogical

Not needed. Your logical conclusions based on your guesses are fine. Your guesses are, well, guesses. Once again, making things up and then drawing "logical conclusions" from it might be a nice thought experiment, but it has nothing to do with fact.

Your own physics doc whom you quoted, admitted to making assumptions- not ones based on any logic either.. just assumptions.

Again- if you cant prove that my logic has failed, then you cant prove it. The door swings both ways, my brother.. ;-)

You do realize that bacteria BECOME resistant to antibiotics as a result of people not FINISHING their antibiotics.. This is the same thing with trying to kill cockroaches

Same thing happens with babies who breastfeed

False. Bacteria do not have immune systems. Bacteria do not become resistant because they encounter antibiotics. They are resistant because they had the resistant-mutation, all bacteria in the area without the resistance died, and they repopulated the colony with resistance genes. This is not a black and white issue as you are suggesting. If a bacteria has a mutation which allows for resistance of only a low dose of antibiotic, it will survive such a dose. When it then goes on to replicate, daughter cells similarly gain random mutations. Given that there already exists a gene that protects against low dose antibiotic, it's not too hard to then gain a mutation that protects against high dose.[/quote]

Dead bugs don't mutate.. Thats all there is to it. You like to talk out of your A$$.

If anything you are saying in these two paragraphs was at all truthful, then doctors would not be publically connecting the failure in taking antibiotics with the resistence of bacteria, because if this was true, then in the grand scheme of things, it would not matter how much antibiotic we took.. but in REALITY, it does very much matter, because it is the surviving bacteria that mutate, not some kind of damned mutation that already took place before the invention of antibiotics. Dont ignore facts..

CDC - Dead Bugs Don’t Mutate: Susceptibility Issues in the Emergence of Bacterial Resistance
The urgent need to curtail proliferation of antibacterial-resistant bacteria has refocused attention on the proper use of antibacterial agents. That the use of any antibacterial agent or class of agents over time will result either in the development of resistance to these agents or in the emergence of new pathogenic strains that are intrinsically resistant is now widely accepted. An example of the development of resistance is the mutation of S. pneumoniae to produce a multidrug-resistant strain (11). An example of a new resistant pathogenic strain is exemplified by the emergence of Enterococcus gallinarum as a nosocomial pathogen due to its intrinsic resistance to vancomycin (12). Keeping these phenomena in check requires a comprehensive strategy that includes, whenever possible, the selection of antibacterial agents in dosages sufficient to be bactericidal (13). A bactericidal effect is desired because, to put it succinctly, dead bugs don’t mutate. In other words, if microbial pathogens causing infection are killed by antimicrobial therapy, rather than inhibited, mutations that might already exist or occur under the selective pressure of the antimicrobial agent are less likely to be promulgated.

See also-

Bacterial Resistance to Antibiotics

(also, antibiotic resistance is a trend we only just started learning about, and there is clearly a direct correlation to us actually taking the damned things, or else how else would there be a resistance at all- there's some logic for ya- didja ever think about that for a second?)

I'm glad you understand the importance of taking a full antibiotic treatment, but it's clear you don't understand why. It's a step-wise process.

Apparently you have more wisdom than the entire CDC.. <bows down>

Actually mutations have been observed as a result of their environment- not evolution, although they tried to call it that but mutations, yes.

Well, yes. It's called cancer. What's your point?

Nope- mutations have been seen in animals, cave fish actually, subjected to super dark conditions underwarer- and they mutated to lose their eyes- but only the use of them, not anything genetic, as you will see here:
Darwin in the Dark

The team transplanted an embryonic surface-fish lens into a cave-fish embryo and, conversely, a degenerated lens from a cave-fish embryo into a surface-fish embryo. As expected, the surface fish with the transplanted cave fish lens did not develop eyes, but surprisingly, the cave fish with the transplanted lens from the surface fish developed large normal eyes. These results showed that, even after tens of thousands of years evolving in caves, most of the genes involved in eye formation in the cave-fish remained fully functional. Evidently a buildup of mutations in the eye genes had not occurred.

And here comes some more BS from the peanut gallery once again- The door swings both ways, dude- you have to show that your mind can open up to others' ideas, if you want others to open up to your theories too. And Care4all's theories are spot on, with what science is determining.

Educate yourself, before putting the old ( I ) hat on, lol

Lukewarm Supervolcano
Geyser Life in Rock Pores

Neither of those links claim those bacteria were around when the world was "too hot". Perhaps you should read your own sources before telling me to educate myself. No scientific evidence has suggested that extremophiles were the first organisms on the planet.

[/quote]

I never said it was provEN- I contended that it was provable, something you truly just choose to ignore. And your ignorance is further proof, in fact, that you did choose to ignore them and are talking out of your ass... Blissful isn't it?

Researchers say a bizarre group of microbes found living inside rocks in an inhospitable geothermal environment at Wyoming's Yellowstone National Park could provide tantalizing new clues about ancient life on Earth and help steer the hunt for evidence of life on Mars.


The research effort in the Norris Geyser Basin shows that rock formation processes occurring in this hydrothermal environment make fossil imprints of the organisms embedded in the rock at various stages, showing how the distinctive fossils develop over time, according to the research team.

Whats that?? ROCKS?? Now what does that mean.. Hmmm.. Means we can date those rocks and find out the age of the bacteria, quite possibly. GEE!!! =)

 

[Setarcos]

The genesis creation account says flowering and seeded plants came on "day" 3, and sea life came on "day" 5.

That's wrong. Flowering and seeded plants were WAY after fish.

And it says fish and birds were created at the same time, then land animals after. That's also wrong since birds developed from reptiles.

Or, they just guessed. And to repeat... they guessd wrong.

wow how did I completely miss the order being wrong? geez... I'm getting rusty. nice catch

Not only wrong


genesis 1 and genesis 2 have different timelines

 

[Setarcos]

Genesis 1

1In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
2And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
3And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
4And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
5And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.






6And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.
7And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.
8And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.



9And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.
10And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.
11And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.
12And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
13And the evening and the morning were the third day.


14And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:
15And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.
16And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.

(the sun IS a star- and how'd you have day and night without the sun?)

17And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth, (WTF?!)
18And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: (I thought he already did that?)and God saw that it was good.

19And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.


20And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.
21And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
22And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth.
23And the evening and the morning were the fifth day.


24And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.
25And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
26And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
27So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. (but Eve doesn't come til later)

28And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.
29And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat. (yet we got kicked out for eating it)
30And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so.
31And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.

Day 1: Light. Day and night
Day 2: made heaven
Day3: Dry land; plants
Day 4: sun, moon, stars (so... how'd the plants exist? Where'd day and night come from?) Divided day from night (again)
Day 5: Fish, wales, and birds
Day6: cows, insects, people

Genesis 2


18And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.
19And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air (which he'd made the day before); and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.
20And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him.

God's a pretty bad matchmaker for an omnipotent and omniscient being

 

[JD_2B]

Genesis 1- NIV
1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

2 Now the earth was [a] formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.

(This is all before the other stuff was made on the first day- this is one part that can be just called "The beginning"- the beginning of the creation, before the days of ours began)

3 And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and He separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light "day," and the darkness he called "night." And there was evening, and there was morning&#8212;the first day.

As you can see, this is what happened on the first day.. The first day happened AFTER there was already rocks or masses made, and something liquid being referred to as water. This is where we get into the question of origins, really- because where the heck did God even come from? Surely there is more to know than any creationist or evolutionist could imagine or prove..

6 And God said, "Let there be an expanse between the waters to separate water from water." 7 So God made the expanse and separated the water under the expanse from the water above it. And it was so. 8 God called the expanse "sky." And there was evening, and there was morning&#8212;the second day.

Expanse between the waters- and the space is called the "sky"? What water is outside of the atmosphere, aside from the waters of other planets (just liquids, but for the sake of recognizing vagueness for what it is, waters is the term I use, also) or is this just referring to clouds or fog, or gases?

9 And God said, "Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear." And it was so. 10 God called the dry ground "land," and the gathered waters he called "seas." And God saw that it was good.

This is when the seas were made.. Probably from the earth being covered in waters (liquids and gases) and then those liquids seeping down.. thereby creating dry ground. This happens even when it rains heavily.

11 Then God said, "Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds." And it was so. 12 The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good. 13 And there was evening, and there was morning&#8212;the third day.

Yep- gotta have water to have plant life..

14 And God said, "Let there be lights in the expanse of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark seasons and days and years, 15 and let them be lights in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth." And it was so. 16 God made two great lights&#8212;the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. 17 God set them in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth, 18 to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good. 19 And there was evening, and there was morning&#8212;the fourth day.

The sun, and the moon.. And the stars.. (Considering stars are all suns, and "lights", they would each also take a day to make.. But he may not have made them ALL during the time the bible says he "made the stars"- but he certainly made some of them.. and that changes our timeline significantly, and also lets us know that we would not have any idea how long it really took to do all this.

20 And God said, "Let the water teem with living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the expanse of the sky." 21 So God created the great creatures of the sea and every living and moving thing with which the water teems, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. 22 God blessed them and said, "Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the water in the seas, and let the birds increase on the earth." 23 And there was evening, and there was morning&#8212;the fifth day.

So, after plant life, (life forms that live by photosynthesis) then came living things in the waters, and in the air.

24 And God said, "Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: livestock, creatures that move along the ground, and wild animals, each according to its kind." And it was so. 25 God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good.

26 Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground."

27 So God created man in his own image,
in the image of God he created him;
male and female he created them.

28 God blessed them and said to them, "Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground."

29 Then God said, "I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food. 30 And to all the beasts of the earth and all the birds of the air and all the creatures that move on the ground&#8212;everything that has the breath of life in it&#8212;I give every green plant for food." And it was so.

31 God saw all that he had made, and it was very good. And there was evening, and there was morning&#8212;the sixth day.

And apparently, on the sixth day, these small life forms had eventually become larger life forms.. humans and large animals... And these verses also go on to say "birds" and "fish", specifically, while the verses concerning Day 5, only say "Let the water teem with living creatures"- not specifically fish, even.. So there is no reason to make a leap here believing that fish existed on the 5th day, at all, but only the originating life required for fish and humans and livestock to develop from.. And birds just happened to develop faster (maybe they're angels in disguise!!)
Totally in sync with everything science keeps trying so desperately to prove otherwise, but only ever succeeds in proving accurate. =)

The Genesis account is anything but literal, but it is a good timeline and portrayal of the stuff that science learned about much much later on....

 

[Setarcos]

The Earth was rock before it had liquid water, btw

 

[Setarcos]

The Genesis account is anything but literal, but it is a good timeline and portrayal of the stuff that science learned about much much later on....

Really?

Did you miss the part about having day, night, and plants before the sun existed?

God fails 6th grade science

 

[SmarterThanHick]

wow, just when I thought you couldn't get any worse. alright, time to shred this one apart too.

Your own physics doc whom you quoted, admitted to making assumptions- not ones based on any logic either.. just assumptions.

Yeah? Where. Please, quote it specifically. Let's see these assumptions.

Dead bugs don't mutate.. Thats all there is to it.

No one claimed they did. Though your straw man argument is amusing.

If anything you are saying in these two paragraphs was at all truthful, then doctors would not be publically connecting the failure in taking antibiotics with the resistence of bacteria, because if this was true, then in the grand scheme of things, it would not matter how much antibiotic we took.. but in REALITY, it does very much matter, because it is the surviving bacteria that mutate, not some kind of damned mutation that already took place before the invention of antibiotics. Dont ignore facts..

False. How do you think those "surviving bacteria" survived in the first place? Yet again you clearly show you have no clue how evolution and natural selection operate. They survive over all their friends because they have something that gives them a survival advantage. The resistance pops up when those individual bacteria then repopulate a colony. What was once a group that was generally susceptible to the antibiotic is now comprised of a group that is mildly resistant. Chances are, some bacterium in that group acquired an even strong resistance.

See also-

Bacterial Resistance to Antibiotics

OK, I saw it. Let's see what your own source has to say on this matter:

Antibiotic resistance in bacteria may be an inherent trait of the organism (e.g. a particular type of cell wall structure) that renders it naturally resistant, or it may be acquired by means of mutation in its own DNA or acquisition of resistance-conferring DNA from another source.

Inherent (natural) resistance. Bacteria may be inherently resistant to an antibiotic. For example, an organism lacks a transport system for an antibiotic; or an organism lacks the target of the antibiotic molecule; or, as in the case of Gram-negative bacteria, the cell wall is covered with an outer membrane that establishes a permeability barrier against the antibiotic.

hmmm, looks like it said EXACTLY what I just said, and proves you wrong. Well done.

Now let's see what wikipedia has to say on the topic: "bacteria which have a mutation allowing them to survive will live on to reproduce"

Here's another layman explanation that says the same thing: http://www.pharmj.com/pdf/cpd/pj_20050423_antibacterial03.pdf

I could provide a number of other sources, but I figured the layman version would be best. The mutation happens first. When antibiotics are added, that mutation happens to save that bacteria, and it goes on to multiply. Again, if you disagree, by all means state how you think certain bacteria happen to survive antibiotics if they don't already have the traits needed.

Nope- mutations have been seen in animals, cave fish actually, subjected to super dark conditions underwarer- and they mutated to lose their eyes- but only the use of them, not anything genetic, as you will see here:
Darwin in the Dark

You're not even talking about the same topic as him anymore! You're just describing simple evolution where acquired genes are passed down from generation to generation, not mutation that occurs after an organism is alive that alters their genetics.

I never said it was provEN- I contended that it was provable

Really? Nice backpedaling there. The claim was that those bacteria were the first when the earth was too hot. That has been shown to not be the case. There are no other arguments on this case.

Whats that?? ROCKS?? Now what does that mean.. Hmmm.. Means we can date those rocks and find out the age of the bacteria, quite possibly. GEE!!! =)

what? you're not even making sense anymore...


ok so let's recap:

• bacteria gain resistance to environmental factors because they already had a mutation that allowed for that, and then regrew their colony with that resistance
• you have no clue how evolution works, yet you continually comment on it
• similarly, THELIGHT was incorrect in his assertion of bacteria "micro evolving"
• similarly, care4all was incorrect in his assertion that extremophiles disprove our ideas of primordial life

 

[JD_2B]

wow, just when I thought you couldn't get any worse. alright, time to shred this one apart too.

Your own physics doc whom you quoted, admitted to making assumptions- not ones based on any logic either.. just assumptions.

Yeah? Where. Please, quote it specifically. Let's see these assumptions.

I DID before- you just conveniently ignored it, as usual.

Dead bugs don't mutate.. Thats all there is to it.

No one claimed they did. Though your straw man argument is amusing.

Its not a straw man.. its a fact- If the antibiotics had been dosed better, taken fully, or the person was given a stronger antibiotic, and followed these same rules, then the bacteria would not have been given the chance to survive. Duh.

False. How do you think those "surviving bacteria" survived in the first place? Yet again you clearly show you have no clue how evolution and natural selection operate. They survive over all their friends because they have something that gives them a survival advantage. The resistance pops up when those individual bacteria then repopulate a colony. What was once a group that was generally susceptible to the antibiotic is now comprised of a group that is mildly resistant. Chances are, some bacterium in that group acquired an even strong resistance.

This is circular reasoning.. Not true and false, just a circular AND a strawman argument based on an illogical assumption that even if antibiotics were effective enough and taken in full, to have killed all the bacteria off, that some bacteria would have the resilience to survive (point of fact, again- dead bugs dont fucking mutate).. so- not true.

OK, I saw it. Let's see what your own source has to say on this matter:

Antibiotic resistance in bacteria may be an inherent trait of the organism (e.g. a particular type of cell wall structure) that renders it naturally resistant, or it may be acquired by means of mutation in its own DNA or acquisition of resistance-conferring DNA from another source.

Inherent (natural) resistance. Bacteria may be inherently resistant to an antibiotic. For example, an organism lacks a transport system for an antibiotic; or an organism lacks the target of the antibiotic molecule; or, as in the case of Gram-negative bacteria, the cell wall is covered with an outer membrane that establishes a permeability barrier against the antibiotic.

hmmm, looks like it said EXACTLY what I just said, and proves you wrong. Well done.

Ahem- not really- It said "may have", and also describes accurately the fact that the cell wall is ALREADY strong.. no mutating needed. Also, it says that the antibiotics themselves may also be what is causing the resiliance. Not True and false- just a shitload of "May be" this and maybe that..

Now let's see what wikipedia has to say on the topic: "bacteria which have a mutation allowing them to survive will live on to reproduce"

Wikipedia??? I did not use WIKIPEDIA- it is not a SOURCE, for fucking Christ's sake.. So you go in, edit it to say what you want, and then ENSURE it's accuracy by saying "Yep thats right!!" ROTFLMAO!!! Nice try..

Here's another layman explanation that says the same thing: http://www.pharmj.com/pdf/cpd/pj_20050423_antibacterial03.pdf

"Windows cannot open this file".. Another nice try.

I could provide a number of other sources, but I figured the layman version would be best. The mutation happens first. When antibiotics are added, that mutation happens to save that bacteria, and it goes on to multiply. Again, if you disagree, by all means state how you think certain bacteria happen to survive antibiotics if they don't already have the traits needed.

That is the theory.. sure. I happen to be open to all theories but unlike you, I do understand a theory for what it is.. a theory. "May be" its right.. but "May be" its wrong, too..

Allow me to share a quote (from an actual medical journal):

The molecular basis for A-site mutations conferrin...[Chembiochem. 2003] - PubMed Result
Aminoglycoside antibiotics target the 16S ribosomal RNA (rRNA) bacterial A site and induce misreading of the genetic code. Point mutations of the ribosomal A site may confer resistance to aminoglycoside antibiotics

You're not even talking about the same topic as him anymore! You're just describing simple evolution where acquired genes are passed down from generation to generation, not mutation that occurs after an organism is alive that alters their genetics.

I was not the one who brought this up.. I am just proving another point wrong. Sorry you don't like that.

I never said it was provEN- I contended that it was provable

Really? Nice backpedaling there. The claim was that those bacteria were the first when the earth was too hot. That has been shown to not be the case. There are no other arguments on this case.

That is not at all what I said- but you certainly have a way of spinning other people's posts, links, etc.. into other words and links, etc..

Whats that?? ROCKS?? Now what does that mean.. Hmmm.. Means we can date those rocks and find out the age of the bacteria, quite possibly. GEE!!! =)

what? you're not even making sense anymore...

Wah! boo hoo..

What? You never thought of actually using rock dating to find out the age, also? Oh thats right, you come from the great SPIN clan who prefers to say that the amount of time an isotope takes TO decay, must be its age. Yeah that makes so much sense.. LMAO
I guess, by your clan's isotope measuring "half life" system, when Einstein split the atom, the resulting 2 atoms were suddenly 4 million years old as well, because based on their decay RATE- this is the only sensible conclusion one might "assume"...... <rolls eyes>
Fact: just because it takes millions of years for something to decay, doesnt mean that it is actually that many years of age.
http://www.lbl.gov/abc/experiments/Experiment6.html

Below is a graph showing the half life of the isotope, Americium-241. Note that in theory, some of the original substance will always remain as the amount of substance only reaches zero as time approaches infinity.

ok so let's recap:

• bacteria gain resistance to environmental factors because they already had a mutation that allowed for that, and then regrew their colony with that resistance
• you have no clue how evolution works, yet you continually comment on it
• similarly, THELIGHT was incorrect in his assertion of bacteria "micro evolving"
• similarly, care4all was incorrect in his assertion that extremophiles disprove our ideas of primordial life

Yes lets-

• You refuse to admit that rock dating is possible, even though it is one of the ways fossils are dated
• You refuse to admit that bacterial resistence would not even be theoretically possible, if not for antibiotic use, which only just started being used in relatively recent history
• You prefer to misquote me and claim that I posted wikipedia as a source, something I would never in a hundred billion years do..
• Setarcos refuses to actually quote any of my posts to him, and also seems to have a reading comprehension problem, since he cannot see that there WAS rock before H2O, as the timeline describes.. and there was light before plants, as the timeline also clearly describes.
• Ignorance is bliss and you are both as guilty of it as you want yo portray the rest of us of being. =)

 

[SmarterThanHick]

wow, just when I thought you couldn't get any worse. alright, time to shred this one apart too.

Your own physics doc whom you quoted, admitted to making assumptions- not ones based on any logic either.. just assumptions.

Yeah? Where. Please, quote it specifically. Let's see these assumptions.

I DID before- you just conveniently ignored it, as usual.

Great. Please link to where you pointed it out before then. Easy solution.

This is circular reasoning.. Not true and false, just a circular AND a strawman argument based on an illogical assumption that even if antibiotics were effective enough and taken in full, to have killed all the bacteria off, that some bacteria would have the resilience to survive (point of fact, again- dead bugs dont fucking mutate).. so- not true.

I can't help but notice how you conveniently avoided the question: How do you think those "surviving bacteria" survived in the first place? Magic? Bacteracle (bacteria miracle)? Little bible fairies came down and sprinkled them with resistance-dust that they then made DNA out of and passed on to future generations? How did these bacteria survive if they did not already have the mutation (or vector) before being introduced to the antibiotic for the first time?

Ahem- not really- It said "may have", and also describes accurately the fact that the cell wall is ALREADY strong.. no mutating needed. Also, it says that the antibiotics themselves may also be what is causing the resiliance. Not True and false- just a shitload of "May be" this and maybe that..

Oh good, another instance of you not reading (your own source). Perhaps you forgot it was your own source and that's the reason you are trying to discredit it now? Either way, you actually said something correct for a change: "the fact that the cell wall is ALREADY strong". Yes, that's how antibiotic resistance works. The bacteria acquires the resistance before it sees the antibiotic for the first time, and is ALREADY strong. That's the point I've been trying to get across from the start. It's amazing that it took you refuting your own source to come to that conclusion.

The "may have" refers to the fact that there are multiple ways a bacteria can gain resistance before coming in contact with an antibiotic for the first time. It may have mutated, it may have picked up the resistance gene through bacteria sex. The use of the word "may" does not equate to "scientists don't know". It means "one of many possibilities that are well studied and understood". Please read your own source better next time.

Wikipedia??? I did not use WIKIPEDIA- it is not a SOURCE, for fucking Christ's sake.. So you go in, edit it to say what you want, and then ENSURE it's accuracy by saying "Yep thats right!!" ROTFLMAO!!! Nice try..

Well clearly using scientific evidence doesn't get through to you, so I used the layman's version. Feel free to check the source - it hasn't been changed in a while. That means it's either correct, or it's part of a massive conspiracy theory. You pick.

"Windows cannot open this file".. Another nice try.

You can't read a PDF?

That is the theory.. sure. I happen to be open to all theories but unlike you, I do understand a theory for what it is.. a theory. "May be" its right.. but "May be" its wrong, too..

oh good, a laymen equating the theory of evolution to "hunch" or "guess". Here in the scientific world, theory is rock solid. Gravity is a theory. This is how evolution works. Bacteria gain the mutation or new gene (through conjugation or other means) before they ever see the antibiotic for the first time. Without that protective factor, they die. If they live because they have some protective mechanism, they then regrow to pass that onto offspring. This is how all of evolution works. I don't quite understand why you're still denying this.

Allow me to share a quote (from an actual medical journal):
"Aminoglycoside antibiotics target the 16S ribosomal RNA (rRNA) bacterial A site and induce misreading of the genetic code. Point mutations of the ribosomal A site may confer resistance to aminoglycoside antibiotics"

This neither supports nor refutes your claim. I'm glad you have figured out how to copy and paste, but perhaps you should try supporting your argument.

What? You never thought of actually using rock dating to find out the age, also?

He claimed extremophiles were the first organisms on the planet. No data supports that. If you know of some dating that does support it, please provide it. Otherwise, you have no claim.

Oh thats right, you come from the great SPIN clan who prefers to say that the amount of time an isotope takes TO decay, must be its age.

I have not claimed that. The other people in this thread (and even other threads) explaining half life decay have not said that either. This is another instance of your inability to understand simple scientific princples, and assuming everyone else's logic is wrong. For starters, you should realize that the time it takes a single atom to decay into its isotope is variable. What's measured is a sample wide effect.

By all means though, point out where ANYONE in this thread (or even others) has said that.

• You refuse to admit that rock dating is possible, even though it is one of the ways fossils are dated

I actually made no mention of that either way. If you disagree, please quote me.

• You refuse to admit that bacterial resistence would not even be theoretically possible, if not for antibiotic use, which only just started being used in relatively recent history

This is another claim which I have neither supported nor denied previously in this thread. What you fail to realize is, antimicrobials came from other microbes before they were mass produced by humans. Bacteria have existed in such conditions for quite some time, and have evolved accordingly. However, humans are now putting strong environmental pressures on these bugs, and they are similarly evolving (by gaining resistance before they see those antibiotics for the first time) to those concentrated efforts.

• You prefer to misquote me and claim that I posted wikipedia as a source, something I would never in a hundred billion years do..

False. I never claimed you posted it, nor did I insinuate it. Again if you disagree, please quote me as to where I said otherwise. I quoted wikipedia in hopes that you'd learn something at your reading level because more advanced readings were incomprehensible to you.

• Setarcos refuses to actually quote any of my posts to him, and also seems to have a reading comprehension problem, since he cannot see that there WAS rock before H2O, as the timeline describes.. and there was light before plants, as the timeline also clearly describes.

The "timeline" describes the sun coming after the plants. How does that work?

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

Blast from the past

 

[AmericanFirst]

Just throwing this out there to see what you guys think.

What if evolution and creationism were one in the same. What if god really did create life on earth and his plan was for that life to evolve over time.

Is it an interesting idea or am I just treading water here?

I'll include a poll for fun

Being a Christian I beleive the Bible is the word of God. The Bible says in Genesis that God created all living creatures according to it's kind. That means he created each animal including man the way they are now. I have talked to other Christians that believe in micro-evolution, within species, I am not sure on that one.

 

[rdean]

What if right wingers created "Gawd" because "Gawd did it" is easier than studying?

 

[SmarterThanHick]

Blast from the past

Wow, I was just thinking about this thread the other day. JD_2B actually gave me a run for my money because there aren't actually too many internet sources which point out the bare basics of this part of biology.

Being a Christian I beleive the Bible is the word of God. The Bible says in Genesis that God created all living creatures according to it's kind. That means he created each animal including man the way they are now. I have talked to other Christians that believe in micro-evolution, within species, I am not sure on that one.

Yes, lacking all education and knowledge on a topic can make one unsure of things.

 

[(R)IGHTeous 1]

Just throwing this out there to see what you guys think.

What if evolution and creationism were one in the same. What if god really did create life on earth and his plan was for that life to evolve over time.

Is it an interesting idea or am I just treading water here?

I'll include a poll for fun

Makes sense, I thought that for a while now too.

 

[JBeukema]

What if right wingers created "Gawd" because "Gawd did it" is easier than studying?

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IVbnciQYMiM[/ame]

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

Just throwing this out there to see what you guys think.

What if evolution and creationism were one in the same. What if god really did create life on earth and his plan was for that life to evolve over time.

Is it an interesting idea or am I just treading water here?

I'll include a poll for fun

Being a Christian I believe the Bible is the word of God. The Bible says in Genesis that God created all living creatures according to it's kind. That means he created each animal including man the way they are now. I have talked to other Christians that believe in micro-evolution, within species, I am not sure on that one.

I read the bible and don't see where the bible said God's creations couldn't evolve over time to be different than what they were originally. You have the passage? I dont think believing in evolution would be going against anything in the bible, including those who believe God created everything.

I don't see how you can't believe things do evolve, we have proof after all that species have evolved and changed over time.

 

[geauxtohell]

Just throwing this out there to see what you guys think.

What if evolution and creationism were one in the same. What if god really did create life on earth and his plan was for that life to evolve over time.

Is it an interesting idea or am I just treading water here?

I'll include a poll for fun

Being a Christian I believe the Bible is the word of God. The Bible says in Genesis that God created all living creatures according to it's kind. That means he created each animal including man the way they are now. I have talked to other Christians that believe in micro-evolution, within species, I am not sure on that one.

I read the bible and don't see where the bible said God's creations couldn't evolve over time to be different than what they were originally. You have the passage? I dont think believing in evolution would be going against anything in the bible, including those who believe God created everything.

I don't see how you can't believe things do evolve, we have proof after all that species have evolved and changed over time.

It goes against a literal reading of most of the old testament.

Though, I can dig the Christian Apologist argument. However, you have to admit that if you aren't going to read the bible literally, then that opens up a rather large can of worms.

 

[Care4all]

Being a Christian I believe the Bible is the word of God. The Bible says in Genesis that God created all living creatures according to it's kind. That means he created each animal including man the way they are now. I have talked to other Christians that believe in micro-evolution, within species, I am not sure on that one.

I read the bible and don't see where the bible said God's creations couldn't evolve over time to be different than what they were originally. You have the passage? I dont think believing in evolution would be going against anything in the bible, including those who believe God created everything.

I don't see how you can't believe things do evolve, we have proof after all that species have evolved and changed over time.

It goes against a literal reading of most of the old testament.

Though, I can dig the Christian Apologist argument. However, you have to admit that if you aren't going to read the bible literally, then that opens up a rather large can of worms.

I don't think so GTH.....It does not go against what little the Bible says on it in 2 chapters of the entire Bible....it does not say they could NOT have evolved in to "their Kind"....and on what a Day is in God's time is unknown....later in the bible it says something like a Day to God is like a thousand years to us.....in other words, a day in God's time, is NOT what we consider a day in our time....this leaves an opening for the 6 days of creation....I think it is foolish for us to presume we understand it all by just 2 simple chapters....the Bible is basically a short story, not an science encyclopedia on how the Earth was made.....at least, this is how I view it.

 

[Avatar4321]

Personally, I dont know why people care so much about it. They are theories how things are done. Great. Unless youve witnessed first hand how the world was created, they are going to remain theories.

Are you seriously going to determine your faith according to which theory is more popular?

Science didn't give me faith in God. Personal experiences with God have. My own studying has. Why would anything short of more experiences do anything to my faith?

I dont understand these people who think that if something isn't proved scientifically it doesn't exist or isn't true. Why would you limt yourself like that? Especially when most of the great scientists in history are great specifically because they theorized something that wasn't proven scientifically in their age and were shown to be correct.

Science is a tool. And if you want to find the truth you have to acknowledge the strengths and the weaknesses in the tool. We need to look at the assumptions we use. We have to look at what experiments actually show. We need to look at the weaknesses in theories as well as their strengths.

The theory of evolution doesn't preclude God at all. Those who think it does aren't being honest with themselves or with anyone else here.

There is only one way to know God. And that's the way Peter did: Revelation.