Simple Examples of Irreducible Complexity - Evolution Impossible

a reply to: Noinden

They always have been - nothing new. But the more he posts, the deeper he digs himself in. That's the point.

a reply to: Phantom423

Indeed. Its also interesting to see them post the same thing again and again, and pretend its new.

a reply to: cooperton

I’ve read through the papers. In 1910 they were looking at inheritance and in 2019 they were looking at adaptation through the adoption of traits. None of them were trying to create new species, and I maintain that no experiment that I know of ever has.

You’re a fraud. You deliberately set out to deceive and distort the truth. I wish you the best of luck at your pearly gates when the time comes, but you ain’t getting in pal.

a reply to: TerraLiga

I know you know this. BUT for those just tuning in:

Coop and his buddies never provide citations to what they say. They might put a YouTube video, or if we are lucky a Pop Sci paper. But never an actual citation, to research they claim does this or that.

a reply to: Noinden

Well on the plus side... these threads and the flat earth one are really the only entertaining threads on the forum lately

Everything else is trump mania....

I’m pretty sure even I could do a better job at being convincing than the average creationist. They all have the same retarded mindset and arguments. It’s like Old Testament bible study actually rots the brain. It’s a fact the religious people have lower IQs but Jesus, they can at least try!

a reply to: TerraLiga

its the literalists... Jews don't take the OT literally...

They know the stories are allegorical... Christians started taking the stories literally, and saying said book is inerrant

Religious texts served their purpose, and in some respects they still do, but they do not replace good peer-reviewed science just because you’re too ignorant to know better or too arrogant to believe your particular book may be wrong in some respects.

If your book helps you be a better person then please keep it and carry on reading - I applaud you for trying. If, however, you twist and distort factual evidence to make it fit your particular flavour of centuries-old religion then you are, in fact, not religious at all.

a reply to: Akragon

Eh not EVERYTHING, but a certain amount seems to be US politics. As if thats interesting to the rest of the world.

a reply to: Akragon

To be fair its a subset of Christianity (and to a smaller extent Islam). The evangelical ones who seem convinced that it is a real story, not allegory to take the kernel of "truth" from. Most non Abrahamic religions don't take their myth as absolute truth.

originally posted by: TerraLiga
Religious texts served their purpose, and in some respects they still do, but they do not replace good peer-reviewed science just because you’re too ignorant to know better or too arrogant to believe your particular book may be wrong in some respects.

If your book helps you be a better person then please keep it and carry on reading - I applaud you for trying. If, however, you twist and distort factual evidence to make it fit your particular flavour of centuries-old religion then you are, in fact, not religious at all.

Authentic religions have no issues with today's science. That went out with Galileo (remember he was finally exonerated). Creationism is not a religion. It's a cult. It has very little to do with Christianity and everything to do with cult organization. They're a small group of scammers pulling the wool over unsuspecting people's eyes while pulling the cash out of their pockets.

Anyone is free to challenge science. But a challenge must be backed up by evidence. This happens all the time. Without innovation and creative thinking, we wouldn't have a technological society. Creationists are in the business of fraud. They know it. We know it. Everyone knows it. Including the IRS ...................

a reply to: Phantom423

See the problem here is these cultists attack science, because it will change with the data (if the data is better), yet at the same time call it a Religion.

They can't have it both ways. But they try.

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: Phantom423

See the problem here is these cultists attack science, because it will change with the data (if the data is better), yet at the same time call it a Religion.

They can't have it both ways. But they try.

That's why they use the Bible as a prop - it gives them credibility. I doubt that any one of them could pass a test on the contents of the Bible, let alone the history behind it. Ken Ham picked up on the idea that the Bible was the literal truth. Six days is six 24 hour days, etc. He ran with that idea and created a marketing business which hauls in cash from believers. All he has to do is provide some "evidence". For that, he recruited a bunch of losers and wanna-be scientists who dreamed up the "science" behind the Bible.

Science is discovery and evidence. That's it. No discovery, no evidence, no science. It's that simple.

a reply to: Phantom423

Its funny that it is seen to give them credibility. I've seen a couple of them argue which one is the real version of the bible. It seems that its the KJV that is the preferred version for creationists

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: Phantom423

Well to be fair, IF he tries to answer the questions, his claims will be blown out of the water.

What question are you referring to?

originally posted by: Phantom423
For that, he recruited a bunch of losers and wanna-be scientists who dreamed up the "science" behind the Bible.

You're so mean-spirited it makes my stomach sick.

a reply to: cooperton

You replied to the post, and ignored the question.

So lets try again.

You claim to have a Bachelors in Chemistry.

What does the 2 stand for in SN2
How many molecules are involved in the rds
What is the kinetics of the rds?

Thats very simple chemistry. First year in Commonwealth nations, second year in the USA (first year in Ivory league Universities). That would be a start of you showing you know any chemistry.


Oh and look you avoided replying to someone, and called them some names. Your usual run away tactic.

GO Home ATS you are double posting

originally posted by: Noinden

You claim to have a Bachelors in Chemistry.

What does the 2 stand for in SN2
How many molecules are involved in the rds
What is the kinetics of the rds?

Thats very simple chemistry. That would be a start of you showing you know any chemistry.

Oh yeah, the question was totally erroneous to the discussion. You gotta learn to follow the chain of conversation. SN2 reaction involves a synchronized breaking of one bond with the forming of another bond. Whereas SN1 involves a two step reaction with an intermediate formation of a carbocation to attract the nucleophilic chemical reactant. In SN1 reactions the rds is the leaving group dissociating to cause the molecule to form a carbocation which quickly attracts the nucleophile. SN2 reactions have an rds that is determined by the concentration of the reactants.

Can we get back to relevant conversation now?

First year in Commonwealth nations, second year in the USA (first year in Ivory league Universities).

Ivory league universities? Is that for elephants?

a reply to: cooperton

No its not erroneous. I simply gave you a way to prove you had an education in chemsitry.

That appears to be a cut and paste job FYI. You skipped the kinetics part. That was very very basic Organic Chemsitry. Oh which happens to be applicable to how DNA reacts.

You can spell flame all you like. But you've still not shown you have a chemical education. Or a science one.

originally posted by: TerraLiga
a reply to: cooperton

I’ve read through the papers. In 1910 they were looking at inheritance and in 2019 they were looking at adaptation through the adoption of traits. None of them were trying to create new species, and I maintain that no experiment that I know of ever has.

Every experiment that has experimented with artificial selection is an attempt to evolve a species. None have succeeded, which you mistake as them never trying. Just like antibiotic resistance in microbes - they originally claimed to have evolved an organism, but the trait was actually reversible in just a few generations, demonstrating it was not evolution.

antibiotic resistance is quickly reversible

I wish you the best of luck at your pearly gates when the time comes, but you ain’t getting in pal.

Yikes well I hope the best for you. Be careful with judging others, it returns to you like a boomerang.