Evolution is a farce: Evidence

originally posted by: borntowatch

originally posted by: Pardon?

originally posted by: borntowatch

originally posted by: theultimatebelgianjoke
a reply to: BlackManINC

Question to the creationists, inspired by my wife (veterinarian) :

How do you explain the development of antibiotics resistant strain of bacteria’s after a couple of generations ?

Seriously....
and your wife's a veterinarian.
No offence but seriously I wouldnt let her near my pets.

I hope you both know you can look for an answer online, study it, its not hard to find the reason.
Thats basic biology

I think that question was used as an illustration of evolution happening and being observed rather than a specific answer being required.

Yeah, its evolution assumed, reality is its not evolution at all, its de-evolution

My issue is that there is no answer required from anyone, some accept evolution even when its not.

A veterinarian who should have studied biology doesnt know or has been taught a lie about evolution and the answer is hidden or not required

Whats wrong with truthful answers explaining why

Everything is evolution to these people. They point at examples of speciation for example as if this is some kind of argument against creationism when all speciation really is, is a loss of genetic information over time between two different species of the same kind of animal, as they lose the ability to procreate with each other. If they believe in change over time by common ancestry, then they are going to have to do a whole lot better than that, because this is in fact de-evolution, not evidence of increasing complexity as the theory of evolution by common ancestry demands. It is a shining example of the evolutionist twisting the real science to fit into their paradigm.

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: BlackManINC

Yes. Now answer my question.

How about you answer this question first before I even bother with yours. If groups like the Smithsonian Institute were to acknowledge the existence of the giants and put the skeletal remains on display, what exactly is this going to tell you about your faith in evolution? Are you going to attempt to twist the evidence sitting right in front of your face to fit the evolutionary paradigm as your fellow evolutionists always do or are you going to acknowledge that when the Bible states "there were giants in the earth in those days", that it meant exactly what it says? And with that said, do you really think that you are going to get the truth about who these giants really were from the anti-Christian academic establishment and mainstream media?

originally posted by: BlackManINC

originally posted by: theultimatebelgianjoke

originally posted by: BlackManINC
a reply to: Daedalus
For anybody that believes there is no reality, then let me tap you hard on the jaw with my fist and than you tell me that there is no reality. If it were legal I might just try and knock some sense into you.

Which chapter of the Bible instructs you to enforce Christianity by punching someone the face ?
Seems like I missed that one.

This is not about enforcing Christianity, this is about enforcing reality and common sense. I would like you to tell an abused child that they can create their own reality and see how well that goes.

Why do you find more relevant to provide an update to that statement rather than answering this question :

How do you explain the development of antibiotics resistant strain of bacteria’s after a couple of generations ?

And GetHyped too deserves an answer to his.

originally posted by: theultimatebelgianjoke

originally posted by: BlackManINC

originally posted by: theultimatebelgianjoke

originally posted by: BlackManINC
a reply to: Daedalus
For anybody that believes there is no reality, then let me tap you hard on the jaw with my fist and than you tell me that there is no reality. If it were legal I might just try and knock some sense into you.

Which chapter of the Bible instructs you to enforce Christianity by punching someone the face ?
Seems like I missed that one.

This is not about enforcing Christianity, this is about enforcing reality and common sense. I would like you to tell an abused child that they can create their own reality and see how well that goes.

Why do you feel more relevant to provide an answer to that statement rather than this question :

How do you explain the development of antibiotics resistant strain of bacteria’s after a couple of generations ?

And GetHyped too deserves an answer to his.

This is another example of the evolutionist twisting the evidence to fit into their paradigm. Without the use of giving a lecture on why this is not an argument for evolution at all, you should be wondering why a drug resistant bacteria was found in a cave of all things.

Cave bacteria resistant to antibiotics

Antibiotic-resistant bacteria cut off from the outside world for more than four million years have been found in a deep cave.

The discovery is surprising because drug resistance is widely believed to be the result of too much treatment.

However, the resistant bugs from Lechuguilla Cave in New Mexico, in the US, have had no contact with humans.

They are thought to have picked up their resistance from natural anti-bacterial chemicals in the environment.

“Our study shows that antibiotic resistance is hard-wired into bacteria. It could be billions of years old, but we have only been trying to understand it for the last 70 years,” said Dr Gerry Wright, from McMaster University in Canada, who has analysed the microbes.

“This has important clinical implications. It suggests that there are far more antibiotics in the environment that could be found and used to treat currently untreatable infections.”

The research is published in the online journal Public Library of Science ONE.

Lechuguilla Cave, which is 1,604ft deep, is one of the largest and deepest unspoiled cave systems in the world. Access to the cave is limited to a handful of cavers and researchers each year.

source: www.scotsman.com...

Hardwired hey? Well, this is another way of saying the bacteria was designed that way from the start. In any case, we know from this what a drug resistant bacteria isn't proof of. If its "millions and billions of years old" as they claim, then a drug resistant bacteria is not evidence at all for macro-evolution, and at best has no problem at all with creationism.

originally posted by: theultimatebelgianjoke

originally posted by: BlackManINC

originally posted by: theultimatebelgianjoke

originally posted by: BlackManINC
a reply to: Daedalus
For anybody that believes there is no reality, then let me tap you hard on the jaw with my fist and than you tell me that there is no reality. If it were legal I might just try and knock some sense into you.

Which chapter of the Bible instructs you to enforce Christianity by punching someone the face ?
Seems like I missed that one.

This is not about enforcing Christianity, this is about enforcing reality and common sense. I would like you to tell an abused child that they can create their own reality and see how well that goes.

Why do you find more relevant to provide an update to that statement rather than answering this question :

How do you explain the development of antibiotics resistant strain of bacteria’s after a couple of generations ?

And GetHyped too deserves an answer to his.

Here is the bottom line, you are more than welcome to believe that this is proof for your faith in evolution. It becomes a problem with me when you people point these examples out to creationists and frame the evidence in a way to make it out to be some argument against creationism. It insults my intelligence, the tactic is mentally ill, and it only shows how disingenuous you are more than anything else.

originally posted by: BlackManINC

originally posted by: theultimatebelgianjoke

originally posted by: BlackManINC

originally posted by: theultimatebelgianjoke

originally posted by: BlackManINC
a reply to: Daedalus
For anybody that believes there is no reality, then let me tap you hard on the jaw with my fist and than you tell me that there is no reality. If it were legal I might just try and knock some sense into you.

Which chapter of the Bible instructs you to enforce Christianity by punching someone the face ?
Seems like I missed that one.

This is not about enforcing Christianity, this is about enforcing reality and common sense. I would like you to tell an abused child that they can create their own reality and see how well that goes.

Why do you feel more relevant to provide an answer to that statement rather than this question :

How do you explain the development of antibiotics resistant strain of bacteria’s after a couple of generations ?

And GetHyped too deserves an answer to his.

This is another example of the evolutionist twisting the evidence to fit into their paradigm. Without the use of giving a lecture on why this is not an argument for evolution at all, you should be wondering why a drug resistant bacteria was found in a cave of all things.

Cave bacteria resistant to antibiotics

Antibiotic-resistant bacteria cut off from the outside world for more than four million years have been found in a deep cave.

The discovery is surprising because drug resistance is widely believed to be the result of too much treatment.

However, the resistant bugs from Lechuguilla Cave in New Mexico, in the US, have had no contact with humans.

They are thought to have picked up their resistance from natural anti-bacterial chemicals in the environment.

“Our study shows that antibiotic resistance is hard-wired into bacteria. It could be billions of years old, but we have only been trying to understand it for the last 70 years,” said Dr Gerry Wright, from McMaster University in Canada, who has analysed the microbes.

“This has important clinical implications. It suggests that there are far more antibiotics in the environment that could be found and used to treat currently untreatable infections.”

The research is published in the online journal Public Library of Science ONE.

Lechuguilla Cave, which is 1,604ft deep, is one of the largest and deepest unspoiled cave systems in the world. Access to the cave is limited to a handful of cavers and researchers each year.

source: www.scotsman.com...

Hardwired hey? Well, this is another way of saying the bacteria was designed that way from the start. In any case, we know from this what a drug resistant bacteria isn't proof of. If its "millions and billions of years old" as they claim, then a drug resistant bacteria is not evidence at all for macro-evolution, and at best has no problem at all with creationism.

Its cute how hard you reach when quote mining and ignore the context of the statement with the rest of the research. The important part of the find wasnt that there was antibiotic resistance in the bacteria found it was

“This has important clinical implications. It suggests that there are far more antibiotics in the environment that could be found and used to treat currently untreatable infections.”

And you with there with the brass to call other disingenuous? You're entire world view is a textbook definition for it. But you wouldn't get that because you won't look at any material you disagree with whereas I'm the biological sciences they look at all possibilities. They do not, as you claim with you "giants" example, try to pigeon hole anything to fit in to evolutionary theory. Instead of looking at the whole picture you're picking up paint chips and screaming at anyone who has ears that the paint chips don't fit. but its only because you refuse to look at the whole picture that you can't see how they fit.

originally posted by: peter vlar

originally posted by: BlackManINC

originally posted by: theultimatebelgianjoke

originally posted by: BlackManINC

originally posted by: theultimatebelgianjoke

originally posted by: BlackManINC
a reply to: Daedalus
For anybody that believes there is no reality, then let me tap you hard on the jaw with my fist and than you tell me that there is no reality. If it were legal I might just try and knock some sense into you.

Which chapter of the Bible instructs you to enforce Christianity by punching someone the face ?
Seems like I missed that one.

This is not about enforcing Christianity, this is about enforcing reality and common sense. I would like you to tell an abused child that they can create their own reality and see how well that goes.

Why do you feel more relevant to provide an answer to that statement rather than this question :

How do you explain the development of antibiotics resistant strain of bacteria’s after a couple of generations ?

And GetHyped too deserves an answer to his.

This is another example of the evolutionist twisting the evidence to fit into their paradigm. Without the use of giving a lecture on why this is not an argument for evolution at all, you should be wondering why a drug resistant bacteria was found in a cave of all things.

Cave bacteria resistant to antibiotics

Antibiotic-resistant bacteria cut off from the outside world for more than four million years have been found in a deep cave.

The discovery is surprising because drug resistance is widely believed to be the result of too much treatment.

However, the resistant bugs from Lechuguilla Cave in New Mexico, in the US, have had no contact with humans.

They are thought to have picked up their resistance from natural anti-bacterial chemicals in the environment.

“Our study shows that antibiotic resistance is hard-wired into bacteria. It could be billions of years old, but we have only been trying to understand it for the last 70 years,” said Dr Gerry Wright, from McMaster University in Canada, who has analysed the microbes.

“This has important clinical implications. It suggests that there are far more antibiotics in the environment that could be found and used to treat currently untreatable infections.”

The research is published in the online journal Public Library of Science ONE.

Lechuguilla Cave, which is 1,604ft deep, is one of the largest and deepest unspoiled cave systems in the world. Access to the cave is limited to a handful of cavers and researchers each year.

source: www.scotsman.com...

Hardwired hey? Well, this is another way of saying the bacteria was designed that way from the start. In any case, we know from this what a drug resistant bacteria isn't proof of. If its "millions and billions of years old" as they claim, then a drug resistant bacteria is not evidence at all for macro-evolution, and at best has no problem at all with creationism.

Its cute how hard you reach when quote mining and ignore the context of the statement with the rest of the research. The important part of the find wasnt that there was antibiotic resistance in the bacteria found it was

“This has important clinical implications. It suggests that there are far more antibiotics in the environment that could be found and used to treat currently untreatable infections.”

And how exactly is this an argument against creationism? Have you bothered to read the recent reports about how bacteria actually becomes resistant to bacteria? Its not really through the process of Darwinian natural selection, as your teacher was ordered to tell you in school. Here is one such report:

Bacteria don’t have sex as such, but they can mix their genetic material by pulling in DNA from dead bacterial cells and inserting these into their own genome. New research has found that this process -- called recombination -- is more complex than was first thought. The findings could help us understand why bacteria which cause serious diseases are able to evade vaccines and rapidly become drug-resistant......

Dr Rafal Mostowy of Imperial College London's School of Public Health explains: "During recombination, bacteria might incorporate new DNA which makes them resistant to treatments, or they may take on genes which change their surface structure, enabling them to evade vaccines. Although we've known for almost a century that recombination takes place, it's only since DNA sequencing has become available that we have been able to determine how often this takes place and how significant the changes are."

link: www.sciencedaily.com...

So who is really the one "grasping at straws"? I'm not the one bringing this stuff up as if its evidence against your faith in evolution. So when your fellow anti-Christians like theultimatebelgianjoke, geyhyped, and whoever else asked me to address this, I just thought "cool, and your point is?". And I'm still waiting on GetHyped to answer my question concerning the giants.

a reply to: borntowatch

Could you (the OP is free to do this as well) spell out here, as clearly as possible, what evidence — if any — would be required in order for you to accept that evolution by natural selection is the cause of the variation between different species (that is, to accept that all life on Earth, humans included, is descended from a common ancestor)?

I ask because you have stated repeatedly in this thread that the evidence presented thus far has not convinced you. Is there anything that would convince you? What is it?

originally posted by: BlackManINC

originally posted by: peter vlar

originally posted by: BlackManINC

originally posted by: theultimatebelgianjoke

originally posted by: BlackManINC

originally posted by: theultimatebelgianjoke

originally posted by: BlackManINC
a reply to: Daedalus
For anybody that believes there is no reality, then let me tap you hard on the jaw with my fist and than you tell me that there is no reality. If it were legal I might just try and knock some sense into you.

Which chapter of the Bible instructs you to enforce Christianity by punching someone the face ?
Seems like I missed that one.

This is not about enforcing Christianity, this is about enforcing reality and common sense. I would like you to tell an abused child that they can create their own reality and see how well that goes.

Why do you feel more relevant to provide an answer to that statement rather than this question :

How do you explain the development of antibiotics resistant strain of bacteria’s after a couple of generations ?

And GetHyped too deserves an answer to his.

This is another example of the evolutionist twisting the evidence to fit into their paradigm. Without the use of giving a lecture on why this is not an argument for evolution at all, you should be wondering why a drug resistant bacteria was found in a cave of all things.

Cave bacteria resistant to antibiotics

Antibiotic-resistant bacteria cut off from the outside world for more than four million years have been found in a deep cave.

The discovery is surprising because drug resistance is widely believed to be the result of too much treatment.

However, the resistant bugs from Lechuguilla Cave in New Mexico, in the US, have had no contact with humans.

They are thought to have picked up their resistance from natural anti-bacterial chemicals in the environment.

“Our study shows that antibiotic resistance is hard-wired into bacteria. It could be billions of years old, but we have only been trying to understand it for the last 70 years,” said Dr Gerry Wright, from McMaster University in Canada, who has analysed the microbes.

“This has important clinical implications. It suggests that there are far more antibiotics in the environment that could be found and used to treat currently untreatable infections.”

The research is published in the online journal Public Library of Science ONE.

Lechuguilla Cave, which is 1,604ft deep, is one of the largest and deepest unspoiled cave systems in the world. Access to the cave is limited to a handful of cavers and researchers each year.

source: www.scotsman.com...

Hardwired hey? Well, this is another way of saying the bacteria was designed that way from the start. In any case, we know from this what a drug resistant bacteria isn't proof of. If its "millions and billions of years old" as they claim, then a drug resistant bacteria is not evidence at all for macro-evolution, and at best has no problem at all with creationism.

Its cute how hard you reach when quote mining and ignore the context of the statement with the rest of the research. The important part of the find wasnt that there was antibiotic resistance in the bacteria found it was

“This has important clinical implications. It suggests that there are far more antibiotics in the environment that could be found and used to treat currently untreatable infections.”

And how exactly is this an argument against creationism? Have you bothered to read the recent reports about how bacteria actually becomes resistant to bacteria? Its not really through the process of Darwinian natural selection, as your teacher was ordered to tell you in school. Here is one such report:

Bacteria don’t have sex as such, but they can mix their genetic material by pulling in DNA from dead bacterial cells and inserting these into their own genome. New research has found that this process -- called recombination -- is more complex than was first thought. The findings could help us understand why bacteria which cause serious diseases are able to evade vaccines and rapidly become drug-resistant......

Dr Rafal Mostowy of Imperial College London's School of Public Health explains: "During recombination, bacteria might incorporate new DNA which makes them resistant to treatments, or they may take on genes which change their surface structure, enabling them to evade vaccines. Although we've known for almost a century that recombination takes place, it's only since DNA sequencing has become available that we have been able to determine how often this takes place and how significant the changes are."

link: www.sciencedaily.com...

So who is really the one "grasping at straws"? I'm not the one bringing this stuff up as if its evidence against your faith in evolution. So when your fellow anti-Christians like theultimatebelgianjoke, geyhyped, and whoever else asked me to address this, I just thought "cool, and your point is?". And I'm still waiting on GetHyped to answer my question concerning the giants.

Cherry picking data and quote mining does not make you right. Your position in the topic is clearly a result of your faith because you don't really argue against the data people provide and resort primarily to ad hominem attacks, calling people heathens and any-Christian simply because the disagree with you. Science, unlike religions, is not for or against anything but answers and the truth. Christians aren't even united in what they believe, their interpretations of the bible or who they hate. They're all over the map in that sense.

As for you giants, demonstrate sources aside from the bible or other religious text that supports their existence. Prove that the Smithsonian is hiding them somewhere then you can have a conversations bourgeoisie instead of conjecture and assumption.

originally posted by: peter vlar

Cherry picking data and quote mining does not make you right. Your position in the topic is clearly a result of your faith because you don't really argue against the data people provide and resort primarily to ad hominem attacks, calling people heathens and any-Christian simply because the disagree with you. Science, unlike religions, is not for or against anything but answers and the truth. Christians aren't even united in what they believe, their interpretations of the bible or who they hate. They're all over the map in that sense.

In other words, you don't really have an argument against my stance at all, but instead can make accusations of "quote mining", as if that means anything at all when I gave the source.

originally posted by: peter vlarAs for you giants, demonstrate sources aside from the bible or other religious text that supports their existence. Prove that the Smithsonian is hiding them somewhere then you can have a conversations bourgeoisie instead of conjecture and assumption.

He's asking me for sources proving the giants existed as my Bible states, so he's going to have to play by MY rules. God doesn't answer to you, you answer to him, so if he can't answer this simple question about how evidence of their existence would have an effect on his faith in evolution, then I don't have to give him a damn thing.

a reply to: BlackManINC

Sure you gave a source and then quote mined it to use a portion out of context to support your vendetta because you've got it in your head that science is anti-Christian when it absolutely is not.

Your tantrum/rant on playing by your rules is a bit pedantic. Its like a child on the playground refusing to let anyone into the sandbox. And I answer to god, or rather your extremist version of your god, about as much as I answer to Santa and the Tooth fairy or Easter Bunny. There's as much and maybe more, evidence to support those fictitious critters contrasted with your version of god. The arrogance and temperament you exude is about as far from Christianity as Zeus or Apollo.

a reply to: borntowatch

Chemist as in chemistry degree, as opposed to Chemist as in Pharmacist. I've made pharmaceuticals for the big boys


As to where the elements came from? Not really a Chemists area, but go find an astrophysicist. ALso I am not an atheist so you really are going to have a different tac with me

a reply to: BlackManINC

See you are doing the typical misinterpretation of what Darwin said and science has shown to be true. Humans (and neanderthals, denisovians, homo erectus etc) shared a common ancestor with chimps about 6 million years ago. Genetics shows this to be true.

As I said neighbor, you are way out of your pay grade here.

originally posted by: peter vlar
a reply to: BlackManINC

Sure you gave a source and then quote mined it to use a portion out of context to support your vendetta because you've got it in your head that science is anti-Christian when it absolutely is not.

I didn't say anything about science being anti-christian, because I'm not confusing your faith in evolution with real science. That's what this is about by the way, traversing through the mindful of your religion to get down to the bottom line scientific observations.

originally posted by: peter vlarYour tantrum/rant on playing by your rules is a bit pedantic. Its like a child on the playground refusing to let anyone into the sandbox.

Well you are more than welcome to enter the "sandbox" (whatever the hell that means) as long as you stop trying to attach your religious belief onto the real science in an attempt present it as an argument against my religion. And if this is not your intent, then what the hell is your problem with me? Are you just f@cking with or are you just folding to peer pressure or something?

originally posted by: peter vlarAnd I answer to god, or rather your extremist version of your god, about as much as I answer to Santa and the Tooth fairy or Easter Bunny. There's as much and maybe more, evidence to support those fictitious critters contrasted with your version of god. The arrogance and temperament you exude is about as far from Christianity as Zeus or Apollo.

Well my temperament is quite cold actually, as cold as ice if you were wondering, nor am I arrogant. Or is this another case of you projecting your own feelings on me?

Maybe some sound scientific evidence in favor of creationism?

Does any exist for the young earth model?

Or any alternative theory to evolution?

That's one thing I've yet to see anyone post yet (maybe I missed it).

a reply to: WakeUpBeer

Thats going to be a tall order given creationism relies on God (or Gods I guess, though I've yet to meet a creationist polytheist), and thus you need to quantify said deity It would also mean being open to peer review, and the possibility of being disproven.

originally posted by: BlackManINC

I didnt say anything about science being anti-christian, because I'm not confusing your faith in evolution with real science. That's what this is about by the way, traversing through the mindful of your religion to get down to the bottom line scientific observations.

Isn't it funny how you hold everyone else to a standard you are unwilling to take part in. You claim others pick and choose and spin the data they want or that works for them but that's exactly what you do when you claim that you don't say science is ant-Christian but the dat majority of scientists in all fields irregardless of the disciplines association with evolutionary theory, thus you are picking and choosing what science what science you are willing to accept. You haven't really given it much thought it would appear as far as how many people in fields you rely on believe in evolution. Only about 5% of scientist in the US believe in creationism, the rest believe evolution. This includes the Dr. that you go to and the people who make your pills and monitor your food and run your ISP. The difference between you and I is that I will at least look at both sides of an issue

Well you are more than welcome to enter the "sandbox" (whatever the hell that means) as long as you stop trying to attach your religious belief onto the real science in an attempt present it as an argument against my religion. And if this is not your intent, then what the hell is your problem with me? Are you just f@cking with or are you just folding to peer pressure or something?

I don't have any religious beliefs, so there's nothing to attach. I believe in the scientific method, evidence and due dilligence. Folding to peer pressure from or for what? That makes no sense whatsoever. You're on a public, open forum. Everyone can respond to you here. If that's not Kosher, start your own message board. I'm not arguing against your religion, I'm arguing against your extremist,minority interpretation of scripture and the fact that you answer around 10% of the actual questions people post when it comes to the actual science
And have yet to deliver answers to several people because your god apparently allows you to make up your own rules on the fly, yet you keep making accusations of disingenuousness towards others.

Well my temperament is quite cold actually, as cold as ice if you were wondering, nor am I arrogant. Or is this another case of you projecting your own feelings on me?

No... Calling people heathens and judging them with contempt and vitriole are definitely the new rage for 21st century Christianity. You are being arrogant with your ranting about the one true god ad rhetoric about heathens and whatever other BS you toss out at people to deflect from the real issues. Its not what Jesus taught. Not even close.

a reply to: Noinden

Why put in the effort and research when just "God did it" is so much easier to proclaim and keep your mind safe with the warm embrace of supernatural rationale.?

originally posted by: BlackManINC
a reply to: violet

And with that, you can see how disingenuous the evolutionists are when they twist the real meaning of adaptation to mean one kind of creature changing into another. To these people, everything is evolution. If the skeletal remains of the giants spoken of in the Bible were put on display, they will find a way to fit it within the evolutionary paradigm. This is nothing more than the old Hindu belief in reincarnation applied to biology and its quite laughable and insulting that this garbage is called "science".

Well I think I would call that transformation or metamorphis, not a mutation like you said earlier in your reply to me. I stick with my original post, saying adaption happens and I call it evolving as in gradually. I don't believe in reincarnation.

originally posted by: peter vlar
a reply to: Noinden

Why put in the effort and research when just "God did it" is so much easier to proclaim and keep your mind safe with the warm embrace of supernatural rationale.?

It is because they know "god did it" is just plain dumb so they desperately try to find something to confirm their beliefs. Seeing as how their isn't a single verifiable shred of evidence to confirm a biblical creation they try desperately try to tear down real science. Basically they are just insecure about their beliefs is all.