thinkagain on January 11, 2009 at 6:01 PM

I thought I’d share some interesting examples of your jealous perfect all-knowing god who in his divine holy word and infinite wisdom incites murder/genocide, rape and enslaving people (source: evilbible.com):

4) Laws of Rape (Deuteronomy 22:28-29 NLT)

If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father. Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her.

“What kind of lunatic would make a rape victim marry her attacker? Answer: God.” (site quote)

More Rape and Baby Killing

Anyone who is captured will be run through with a sword. Their little children will be dashed to death right before their eyes. Their homes will be sacked and their wives raped by the attacking hordes. For I will stir up the Medes against Babylon, and no amount of silver or gold will buy them off. The attacking armies will shoot down the young people with arrows. They will have no mercy on helpless babies and will show no compassion for the children. (Isaiah 13:15-18 NLT)

Mass Murder

This is what the Lord of hosts has to say: ‘I will punish what Amalek did to Israel when he barred his way as he was coming up from Egypt. Go, now, attack Amalek, and deal with him and all that he has under the ban. Do not spare him, but kill men and women, children and infants, oxen and sheep, camels and asses.’ (1 Samuel 15:2-3 NAB)

Kill Witches
You should not let a sorceress live. (Exodus 22:17 NAB)

Kill Homosexuals
“If a man lies with a male as with a women, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives.” (Leviticus 20:13 NAB)

Kill Fortunetellers

A man or a woman who acts as a medium or fortuneteller shall be put to death by stoning; they have no one but themselves to blame for their death. (Leviticus 20:27 NAB)

How to buy & treat a slave:
“If you buy a Hebrew slave, he is to serve for only six years. Set him free in the 7th year, and he will owe you nothing for his freedom

[Exodus 21:1] … “When a man sells his daughter as a slave…” [Exodus 21:7]
“If a male or female slave is beaten and dies, the owner must be punished. If the slave recovers after a couple of days, however, then the owner should not be punished, since the slave is the owner’s property.” [Exodus 21:20]

From the ten commandments:
“Do not make idols of any kind, for I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God who will not share your affection with any other God! I do not leave unpunished the sins of those who hate me, but I punish the children for the sins of the parents to the third and fourth generations…” [Exodus 20:4]

Of course I’ve barely scratched the surface, there’s much more lunacy I can dredge up from this primitive barbaric text which you and the muslims (Islam is a bastardization of judaism/christianity/paganism) consider to be sent from the creator of the universe.

While I’m at it, here’s some other quotes:

“When one person suffers from a delusion it is called insanity; when many people suffer from a delusion it is called religion.”- Robert Pirsig

“Just like the Old Testament, the “New” one is also a work of crude carpentry, hammered together long after its purported events, and full of improvised attempts to make things come out right.” … “Religion comes from the bawling and fearful infancy of our species, and a babyish attempt to meet our inescapable demand for knowledge (as well as comfort, reassurance, and other infantile needs). The Aztecs had to tear open a human chest cavity every day just to make sure that the sun would rise… How many needless assumptions must be made, and how much contortion is required, to receive every new insight of science and manipulate it so as to “fit” with the revealed words of ancient man-made deities?
God did not create man in his own image. Evidently, it was the other way about, which is the painless explanation for the profusion of gods and religions, and the fratricide both between and among faiths, that we see all about us and that has so retarded the development of civilization. Past and present religious atrocities have occurred not because we are evil, but because it is a fact of nature that the human species is, biologically, only partly rational.
Religion is man-made. Even the men who made it cannot agree on what their prophets or redeemers or gurus actually said or did –and yet believers still claim to know. Not just to know, but to know everything . Not just to know God exists, but also to know what “he” demands of us–from our diet to our observances to our sexual morality [...] One faction–itself composed of warring factions–has the sheer arrogance to tell us that we already have all the essential information we need. Such stupidity, combined with such pride, should be enough on its own to exclude “belief” from the debate. The person who is certain, and who claims divine warrant for his certainty, belongs now to the infancy of our species.” [taken from Christopher Hitchens' "God is Not Great-How Religion Poisons Everything]

And yet another athiest’s argument distilled to every atheist’s argument: “There’s no such thing as God, Stupidhead!”

Actually it was a lengthy well-constructed argument which you completely ignored and zeroed in on the last sentence which no doubt stung your fragile ego and hence proved my point that thinking does hurt a typical theists’ head.

Otherwise you would’ve had something more constructive to say than cry about being slighted by the big bad atheist. The only one that’s done any ‘distilling’ is you.

You’ve got your religion, we’ve got our religion, why not live and let live? Or do you atheists object to coexistence because keeping your ever roaring, self agrandizing, pieholes shut for five seconds hurt too much? That’s a rhetorical question, by the way.

SuperCool on January 7, 2009 at 4:39 AM

Haha, Atheism isn’t a religion, its a philosophical position that denies the assertion of theists. Just as being a non-believer of unicorns would be.

And I’d be more than happy to let people pray to whatever figment of their imagination they like, but the trouble is that theists can’t keep their views to themselves and want to infringe on my secular rights and freedoms in accordance with their Iron Age myths and force our schools, institutions, healthcare system to adopt their beliefs on abortion, stem-cell research, evolution, etc.

So really you have it backwards, its believers that-as you said-can’t keep their “ever roaring, self agrandizing, pieholes shut for five seconds” (ie-keep their beliefs to themselves). Hence your beliefs become my problem whether I like it or not-just like the muslims who call us evil infidels that need to be converted or killed for not following Islam.

Christianity is Islam’s obnoxious, but less violent cousin. I’m under no illusions, if Christians got their way, we’d be living in a backwards theocratic state much as the muslim world is right now and atheists would be killed or jailed for their heresy and blasphemy. Its too bad that while you theists can recognize Islam is a fascist totalitarian religion, you’re unable to see that yours isn’t much different.

As for rhetoric, that’s all you theists offer since you cannot provide any evidence for the existence of your imaginary friends apart from a 2000 year old man-made text full of desert fairy tales and a slave morality.

In closing, you can call people liars, trash or whatever juvenile little name you can think of, but in the end, you admitted, via your claims, that in the future you look forward to seeing people tortured by your god.

You can call it justice all you like or anything else you like, but the fact remains that you are simply a sick, twisted and hate-filled little religious zealot.

And that is to be pitied.

Rant all you like, but you still only prove my point, but at least your on-line reputation was accurate.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14094-bacteria-make-major-evolutionary-shift-in-the-lab.html

A major evolutionary innovation has unfurled right in front of researchers’ eyes. It’s the first time evolution has been caught in the act of making such a rare and complex new trait.

And because the species in question is a bacterium, scientists have been able to replay history to show how this evolutionary novelty grew from the accumulation of unpredictable, chance events.

Twenty years ago, evolutionary biologist Richard Lenski of Michigan State University in East Lansing, US, took a single Escherichia coli bacterium and used its descendants to found 12 laboratory populations.

The 12 have been growing ever since, gradually accumulating mutations and evolving for more than 44,000 generations, while Lenski watches what happens

So, your claim that evolution has never been demonstrated in the lab is simply erroneous and ignorant of some of the recent new on the subject.

Odd for one claiming to be a scientist.

and you have to appeal to a FAITH IN TIME to support evolution.

And posting more Hovind claims (you know, the ones you claimed you never made) doesn’t change the fact that you misrepresent what the TOE is or how it is viewed.

if it was ’science’ you’d be able to give me those sequences of mutations…that you cannot, says it all….

No, it simply means that you can made irrational demands. Again, you demanded to know the sequence of mutations that led to the human eye. Even if we were able to replicate the development of the eye in a lab right now, short of going back in time, we would never be able to cite the exact sequence of mutations and evolutionary steps. So again, your demands are simply irrational.

oh I looked up Hovind…he was convicted of TAX crimes…yeah that TOTALLY discredits creationism!! Duhhhhh

And you overlook the painful fact that he was a devout and quite public xian preaching the facts and virtues of his god. So it appears that Hovind failed to heed the command found in the xian bible that he should have rendered unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s.

Then there is the whole topic of where were his morals in not paying taxes, employee taxes I believe, that his employees rely upon for SS and such.

You conveniently avoided that facet of the point.

since you spout the racist theory of that proven RACIST DARINW and WATSON..you are a RACIST!!

So says the closed minded little xian apologists. I’m shocked it took you this long to make that accusation due to your illustrated simplistic and limited conversational ability.

But your resorting to calling me a racist in order to defend a person you claimed you never heard about? And especially after using so many of his claims?

So if Hovind was unknown to you and means nothing to you, why resort to now calling me a racists?

Again, your actions do not support your claims.

oh and as far as sternberg…just proves what fascist little brown-shirt thugs you darwiniacs are…

And just goes to show how fact Godwin’s law is not only proven but reached by a closed minded xian like you.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_Law

smearing and lying for darwin…I know your hairygod would be proud!!

And how limited your ability to rationally think and follow a story, or the facts, is. So what was the outcome of this? Odd how you don’t post it.

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2006/12/the_house_government_reform_su.html

The House Government Reform Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, Drug Policy, and Human Resources has issued its official report on the investigation into the harassment and discrimination against biologist Dr. Richard Sternberg. (for more background see here). The congressional report bluntly states: The staff investigation has uncovered compelling evidence that Dr. Sternberg’s civil and constitutional rights were violated by Smithsonian officials. Posted here is the Executive Summary of the report. The full report can be downloaded here, and the appendix can be downloaded here.

So, those who violated his free speech were found guilty of such. Again, very odd how you forget to mention that this led to a finding in his favor and protection for others.

you darwiniacs have to do things like this because you cannot defend your faith…er ‘theory’ *smirk*

And xians like you have to play fast and loose with the truth in order to deny the facts of science. And again, you failed to mention that those who violated his free speech were dealt with. I wonder why that was?

and I’ve already PROVEN it is atheistic…

No, you just thing that science need to include your god and or the pseudoscience of Intelligent Design. Science does not and cannot by its very nature and function dela with the supernatural and/or magic.

Citing a personal opinion is not a universal fact nor proof of your claim. Again, did the author know Dawin? No. So his claim is his opinion.

when are you gonna get a clue???

When are you going to show any sign of intellectual honest or character?

evolution IS ATHEISM..duhhhhh…

No, evolution is a scientific theory. Science is secular by nature. Again, it cannot address the supernatural or magical. You may not like that fact, but your constant rally against that fact shows how you simply do not understand science.

And again, it is not just evolution that disagrees with your xian bible. Heliocentric solar system is another that disagrees with it. The church even executed people for supporting it over a geocentric solar system as, they claims, was a fact claimed by the xian bible. Ever hear of Giordano Bruno? Burned at the stake by the church for supporting the fact of heliocentric solar system over the biblical “fact” of a geocentric one.

So what was the field of science you work in again?

And we still have your dismissal of the human/chimp chromosome comparison. Odd thing that.

right4life
I haven’t made any…

You haven’t made any claims? Laughable.

have you proven your ‘theory’ yet…evolved anything yet??
created a new life form?? no???

Strawman that only a person bereft of understanding of what science is would keep posting such nonsense. So what field of science do you work in again?

more atheist ‘interpretation’ of the bible too funny!! lying for darwin again!! its all ya got…

And now you show your are a coward as well as ignorant. You cannot even address the documented claim of your own xian bible but cower away and post more insults.

oh please this is laughable. you cannot list the sequence of mutations for ANYTHING…

You demands to know what series of mutations led to the human eye. That is impossible to know.

yet you have FAITH that those mutations happened…its not science its faith in your hairygod darwin…laughable.

Keep repeating the Hovind lines all you like.

oh yes the faith in ‘TIME’ please its laughable..

And that would be another Hovind claim you have tried to claim you never made. So that either mean you are ignorant of what you have posted or have lied about it. Which is it?

there you go, see you don’t need ‘time’. you’ve had 150 years of the same old lies…and ya got nothing, zero, zip, nada…

And you still do not understand that what you post does not support your claims no matter how many time you misrepresent it.

I can cite the simplistic and ignorant dismissal you made about the bacteria that evolved to be able to consume nylon.

you claim evolution is ’science’ but you have no facts to back it up…

Again, the evolution of the bacteria. You ignored it and dismissed it due to your ignorance of what evolution is.

just faith…and the hope that ’someday’ you’ll figure it out….amazing.

Not at all. But then again, you cannot understand anything that is not part and parcel of your mythology and related religion. Your closed minded outlook due to that supports just how people can be blinded by their religion.

And keep playing those word games.

first off, there is quite a bit of debate whether it was beneficial or not…

Only to the minds of theists who try to dismiss it. The fact remains that the bacteria was able to take advantage of a new food source that no other bacteria could. To try to claim that such an ability was not beneficial is irrational and dishonest.

and even then, you have a beneficial mutation??? so??

Too funny. Xian apologists claim that there is not such a thing as a beneficial mutation yet when one is cited you simply and simplistically dismiss it.

it is still a bacteria…

And that comment is more proof that you do not understand what evolution states or is. The bacteria evolved. That is a fact.

you need many, many beneficial mutations….

According to whom? You? You do not even know what the TOE is outside of the strawman xian claims of what it is.

but they don’t add up…as I posted earlier, and you were
obviously too stupid to understand…try again…

Yes, they do and your continuing dismissal doesn’t change the fact that you simply cannot understand the TOE or the ramifications of the evolution of the cited bacteria.

since you obviously didn’t understand it the first time…

Actually, you don’t and I will illustrate why.

this study tried to add beneficial mutations together…and notice that study has not been done before…so much for ’science’….

And your ignorance. They were studying RNA.

And note the article date. Nearly five years ago. Where is the followup?

and notice the phrase all significant interactions were antagonistic. thats not good…in other words…an organism can only support so many mutations, then it dies…

And your misrepresentation and selective use of science is proven again. Take the part you ignorantly overlooked:

Several pairs exhibited significant interactions for fitness, including antagonistic and synergistic epistasis. Synthetic lethals represented 50% of the latter.

50%. Half. So where is the total failure?

ever hear of Haldane’s dilemma??? try looking that up…..sigh.

Look it up? Sorry, not going to do your job. Your track record on misrepresent source material is bad enough that you need to provide the link.

it basically says the same thing for bacteria.

No, it stated it for the bacteria they were testing. And you also are relying upon one study and/or test. This illustrates more of your layman understanding of science.

One study and/or one test might be good enough for a news story sound bite, but science requires multiple ongoing testing.

now get a clue…mutations do NOT add up. sorry.

Again, according to you, a person who misrepresent what science is.

But, back to the fact that you were too ignorant to understand the ramification of the beneficial mutation of the nylon eating bacteria. In an intellectually dishonest move, you shifted the goal posts from a claim of no beneficial mutation to not one of mutation not adding up.

all you have is FAITH that they do…

Not at all in the manner you mean. I have addressed that hollow claim of yours, but you have ignored that as well in favor of repeating your fallacious claim.

and even if you find one beneficial mutation..

Which we have.

think of the problems of spreading it through a population…

Evidently, not that big of one considering that the bacteria in question survive and thrived.

thats why you do NOT have fossil sequences of transitions,

And that is simply false. We have plenty of examples of transitional forms. We just don’t have ones that the ignorant xian apologist demand. These would be one that are based upon their lack of comprehension of what evolution is. Take for example the transitional fossil of archaeopteryx.

http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/diapsids/birds/archaeopteryx.html

and you cannot demonstrate evolution in a lab…

And that is yet another fallacious claim based upon your religious faith, lack of knowledge of science and not fact.

http://sciencenotes.wordpress.com/2008/06/19/historical-contingency-in-evolution-is-demonstrated-in-the-lab/

Historical contingency in evolution is demonstrated in the lab

2008 June 19, Thursday, 18:00 — monado

It was S. J. Gould’s contention that evolution is a contingent process: its path is contingent on historical events, so that if you “re-wound the tape” of evolution and started it again from an earlier point, you would not get exactly the same results.

Well, historical contingency — and macroevolution — have both been demonstrated by Richard Lenski in a long-running laboratory experiment using the bacterium Escherichia coli.

The results were published June 4th in PNAS. In addition, in case irreducible complexity needed another nail in its coffin, the experiements demonstrate the accumulation of mutations over years that result in a novel change requiring more than one step.

That feeds right into your previous ignorant comment that science is now atheistic when all along science is and will remain free of any sort of supernatural or magic claims due to the way science operates and what it addresses.

and I’ve already PROVEN it is atheistic…from Miller’s own quote..IN A TEXTBOOK…

Naturalistic evolution has clear consequences that Charles Darwin understood perfectly. 1) No gods worth having exist; 2) no life after death exists; 3) no ultimate foundation for ethics exists; 4) no ultimate meaning in life exists; and 5) human free will is nonexistent.”

Provine, William B. [Professor of Biological Sciences, Cornell University], “, “Evolution: Free will and punishment and meaning in life”, Abstract of Will Provine’s 1998 Darwin Day Keynote Address.

“Darwin developed an evolutionary theory based on chance variation and natural selection imposed by an external environment: a rigidly materialistic (and basically atheistic) version of evolution,” (- Stephen Jay Gould, Ever Since Darwin: Reflections in Natural History 33 (W.W. Norton 1977).)

First, Darwinism rejects all supernatural phenomena and causations. The theory
of evolution by natural selection explains the adaptedness and diversity of the
world solely materialistically. It no longer requires God as creator or designer
(although one is certainly free to believe in God even if one accepts evolution).
Darwin pointed out that creation, as described in the Bible and the origin accounts
of other cultures, was contradicted by almost any aspect of the natural world.
Every aspect of the wonderful design so admired by natural theologians could
be explained by natural selection…(Mayr, E. (2000). Darwin’s influence on modern thought. Scientific American, 283, 70-83, 81.

Similarly, Douglas Futuyma,
in his widely used college textbook Evolutionary Biology, writes: By coupling undirected,
purposeless variation to the blind, uncaring process of natural selection, Darwin made theological
or spiritual explanations of the life processes superfluous (Futuyma 1998, p. 5).

when are you gonna get a clue???

evolution IS ATHEISM..duhhhhh…

2 can play the smear game…

since you spout the racist theory of that proven RACIST DARINW and WATSON..you are a RACIST!!

oh and as far as sternberg…just proves what fascist little brown-shirt thugs you darwiniacs are…

Evolutionary biologist Richard Sternberg made a fateful decision a year ago.

As editor of the hitherto obscure Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, Sternberg decided to publish a paper making the case for “intelligent design,” a controversial theory that holds that the machinery of life is so complex as to require the hand — subtle or not — of an intelligent creator.

Richard Sternberg came under fire from Smithsonian scientists over an article questioning evolutionary theory. (By Michael Williamson — The Washington Post)

Within hours of publication, senior scientists at the Smithsonian Institution — which has helped fund and run the journal — lashed out at Sternberg as a shoddy scientist and a closet Bible thumper.

“They were saying I accepted money under the table, that I was a crypto-priest, that I was a sleeper cell operative for the creationists,” said Steinberg, 42 , who is a Smithsonian research associate. “I was basically run out of there.”

An independent agency has come to the same conclusion, accusing top scientists at the Smithsonian’s National Museum of Natural History of retaliating against Sternberg by investigating his religion and smearing him as a “creationist.”

The U.S. Office of Special Counsel, which was established to protect federal employees from reprisals, examined e-mail traffic from these scientists and noted that “retaliation came in many forms . . . misinformation was disseminated through the Smithsonian Institution and to outside sources. The allegations against you were later determined to be false.”

“The rumor mill became so infected,” James McVay, the principal legal adviser in the Office of Special Counsel, wrote to Sternberg, “that one of your colleagues had to circulate [your résumé] simply to dispel the rumor that you were not a scientist.”

link

smearing and lying for darwin…I know your hairygod would be proud!!

you darwiniacs have to do things like this because you cannot defend your faith…er ‘theory’ *smirk*

Further proof is your citation of a religious site rather than any scientific one for proof that evolution did not happen. That feeds right into your previous ignorant comment that science is now atheistic when all along science is and will remain free of any sort of supernatural or magic claims due to the way science operates and what it addresses.

more lying for darwin…I’ve posted scientific sites…much more than you have…moron, all you have is ‘wikpedia’ DUHHHHHHH idiot.

That would be the felon “Dr. Dino” Kent Hovind the creator of many of the fallacious claim you repeat.

I haven’t made any…have you proven your ‘theory’ yet…evolved anything yet?? created a new life form?? no???

So if science has not proven the claims of your bible in error, the Earth must be flat, the universe must revolve around the Earth, rabbits must chew cuds and you can change the appearance of the offspring of sheep by placing rod of different metal in front of them.

more atheist ‘interpretation’ of the bible too funny!! lying for darwin again!! its all ya got…

You again try to make unreasonable demands. Even if we could evolve and eye, your demands for anyone to list the mutation that caused the eye to develop is simply ridiculous. Short of a time machine, it is highly unlikely that we will know the exact mutation that caused, past tense, the evolution of the eye.

oh please this is laughable. you cannot list the sequence of mutations for ANYTHING…yet you have FAITH that those mutations happened…its not science its faith in your hairygod darwin…laughable.

oh yes the faith in ‘TIME’ please its laughable..

Evolution Occurs in the Blink of an Eye
A population of butterflies has evolved in a flash on a South Pacific island to fend off a deadly parasite.

link

there you go, see you don’t need ‘time’. you’ve had 150 years of the same old lies…and ya got nothing, zero, zip, nada…you claim evolution is ‘science’ but you have no facts to back it up…just faith…and the hope that ‘someday’ you’ll figure it out….amazing.

You simplistic dismissal proves my point that you simply do not understand what evolution is. Sadly, like far too many willingly ignorant theists, you think that evolution mean that one “kind” turns into another. This is illustrated in your reply that the bacteria is still a bacteria. You simply totally missed, ignored or were simply not able to understand the fact that a beneficial mutation allowed the bacteria to take advantage of a new food source. That is an example of evolution.

first off, there is quite a bit of debate whether it was beneficial or not…and even then, you have a beneficial mutation??? so?? it is still a bacteria…you need many, many beneficial mutations….but they don’t add up…as I posted earlier, and you were obviously too stupid to understand…try again…

The tendency for genetic architectures to exhibit epistasis among mutations plays a central role in the modern synthesis of evolutionary biology and in theoretical descriptions of many evolutionary processes. Nevertheless, few studies unquestionably show whether, and how, mutations typically interact. Beneficial mutations are especially difficult to identify because of their scarcity. Consequently, epistasis among pairs of this important class of mutations has, to our knowledge, never before been explored. Interactions among genome components should be of special relevance in compacted genomes such as those of RNA viruses. To tackle these issues, we first generated 47 genotypes of vesicular stomatitis virus carrying pairs of nucleotide substitution mutations whose separated and combined deleterious effects on fitness were determined. Several pairs exhibited significant interactions for fitness, including antagonistic and synergistic epistasis. Synthetic lethals represented 50% of the latter. In a second set of experiments, 15 genotypes carrying pairs of beneficial mutations were also created. In this case, all significant interactions were antagonistic. Our results show that the architecture of the fitness depends on complex interactions among genome components.

link

since you obviously didn’t understand it the first time…this study tried to add beneficial mutations together…and notice that study has not been done before…so much for ‘science’….and notice the phrase
all significant interactions were antagonistic. thats not good…in other words…an organism can only support so many mutations, then it dies…ever hear of Haldane’s dilemma??? try looking that up…..sigh.

here’s another one…

The team tested the robustness of E. coli while mutating a gene for a lactamase (TEM-1) that confers some resistance to ampicillin.

Subjecting TEM-1 to random mutational drift and purifying selection (to purge deleterious mutations) produced changes in its fitness landscape indicative of negative epistasis; that is, the combined deleterious effects of mutations were, on average, larger than expected from the multiplication of their individual effects. As observed in computational systems, negative epistasis was tightly associated with higher tolerance to mutations (robustness). Thus, under a low selection pressure, a large fraction of mutations was initially tolerated (high robustness), but as mutations accumulated, their fitness toll increased, resulting in the observed negative epistasis. These findings, supported by FoldX stability computations of the mutational effects, prompt a new model in which the mutational robustness (or neutrality) observed in proteins, and other biological systems, is due primarily to a stability margin, or threshold, that buffers the deleterious physico-chemical effects of mutations on fitness. Threshold robustness is inherently epistatic-once the stability threshold is exhausted, the deleterious effects of mutations become fully pronounced, thereby making proteins far less robust than generally assumed.

Bershtein et al, “Robustness-epistasis link shapes the fitness landscape of a randomly drifting protein,” Nature 444, 929-932 (14 December 2006) | doi:10.1038/nature05385.

it basically says the same thing for bacteria.

now get a clue…mutations do NOT add up. sorry. all you have is FAITH that they do…and even if you find one beneficial mutation..think of the problems of spreading it through a population…thats why you do NOT have fossil sequences of transitions, and you cannot demonstrate evolution in a lab…and you have to appeal to a FAITH IN TIME to support evolution.

if it was ‘science’ you’d be able to give me those sequences of mutations…that you cannot, says it all….

right4life
somehow I knew you’d spew talking points…

The sad thing is that it is not a talking point but a fact about the theories you like to try to tie together.

and who is hovind? why do you keep briging him up?

That would be the felon “Dr. Dino” Kent Hovind the creator of many of the fallacious claim you repeat.

you sound like a wacko.

And posting more personal insults still doesn’t do anything for your argument, claims or reputation online.

explain this:

What about it? You again are misrepresenting or cannot understand what you are quoting.

actually none. post your proof, this should be good for a laugh…more idiotic atheist BS no doubt!

So if science has not proven the claims of your bible in error, the Earth must be flat, the universe must revolve around the Earth, rabbits must chew cuds and you can change the appearance of the offspring of sheep by placing rod of different metal in front of them.

named sternberg and gonzales…you’re either a liar, or just plain stupid…look it up…duhhhhh

And yet you ignorantly could not goggle Hovind? Such slothfulness.

But, that is not how it works. Your claims require you to post the information. Making general single name references is meaningless just as your proclivity to call people liars rather than backing your argument up does nothing but illustrate your lack of any proof.

so you don’t know the sequence of mutations…BUT THERE MUST BE SOME BECAUSE EVOLUTION IS TRUE…duhhhhh you’re a caricature…all you have is faith…

And all you have are intellectually dishonest demands and word games. So what else is new? And now you have to scream your reply. So sad but typical. You simply cannot conduct yourself in a rational and civil manner.

again the FAITH of the darwiniac….if you can’t duplicate it, see it in the fossil record…then its FAITH..duhhh moron.

And more intellectually dishonest replies form the theistic apologist. All you have are word games and erroneous claims about a theory you simply do not understand.

What BS!! you really are a laughable fool. you can’t tell me the mutations…but you have FAITH they happened…thats not science…duhhhhh

You again try to make unreasonable demands. Even if we could evolve and eye, your demands for anyone to list the mutation that caused the eye to develop is simply ridiculous. Short of a time machine, it is highly unlikely that we will know the exact mutation that caused, past tense, the evolution of the eye.

The fact that you think this ridiculous demand is proof of anything but your lack of comprehension of what science is and how it operates illustrates your closed minded and polarized outlook.

I’m not going to bother with the rest of your drivel…

In other words, all you have are insults and you cannot back up your claims rationally.

when you have some facts, instead of lame ‘bending over for darwin’ BS let me know.

Wow. A gay reference as well? So your reputation as a homophobe is fact.

Oh, but I have proof and you ignored it due again to you complete and utter lack of understanding of what evolution is. Here, let me demonstrate.

uh moron…ITS STILL A BACTERIA…DUHHHHH THATS NOT EVOLUTION…sigh…. pathetic.

Well, first of all, so much for not replying to the rest of my posts.

You simplistic dismissal proves my point that you simply do not understand what evolution is. Sadly, like far too many willingly ignorant theists, you think that evolution mean that one “kind” turns into another. This is illustrated in your reply that the bacteria is still a bacteria. You simply totally missed, ignored or were simply not able to understand the fact that a beneficial mutation allowed the bacteria to take advantage of a new food source. That is an example of evolution.

Further proof is your citation of a religious site rather than any scientific one for proof that evolution did not happen. That feeds right into your previous ignorant comment that science is now atheistic when all along science is and will remain free of any sort of supernatural or magic claims due to the way science operates and what it addresses.

I’m off to bed now (12:51 AM in my timezone), but I’ll be back tomorrow. Don’t get impatient for a reply in the meantime.

DarkCurrent on January 9, 2009 at 11:53 AM

you haven’t given me a reply to date, so I don’t expect any tomorrow!

Designed by what?

to me *WHO* but ID excludes that.

Yes, another. It’s very clear to me from previous threads where we touched on the subject that you don’t personally have a very good understanding of the subject.

really? but of course if I was an evolutionist, you’d consider me brilliant!!

confident it was clear to the majority of readers that you got a thumpin’. It’s too bad we don’t have a feature here to vote on such things.

laughable. you’re a legend in your own mind…you are unable to respond to any points I have made…still haven’t explained the tuatara now have you?

the truth isn’t up for a vote…sorry.

actually the answer isn’t the ’supernatural’ rather as I alluded to earlier, a certain amount of variability is DESIGNED into the genome.

Designed by what?

‘another’..surely you jest!! and yes there are a lot of things out there that make you question the age of the universe…unless you’re a darwiniac of course…then time is the *magic* ingrediant…

Yes, another. It’s very clear to me from previous threads where we touched on the subject that you don’t personally have a very good understanding of the subject. I’m confident it was clear to the majority of readers that you got a thumpin’. It’s too bad we don’t have a feature here to vote on such things.

I’m off to bed now (12:51 AM in my timezone), but I’ll be back tomorrow. Don’t get impatient for a reply in the meantime.

And don’t forget the salt!

It would be an extremely useful mechanism and conserved.

why does evolution ‘conserve’ anything? and how does evolution *know* to ‘conserve’ something?

oh yeah because it survives…another tautology…

Of course to creationists, the supernatural is always the answer to any non-trivial question. As Gene Splice tried to explain to you, science (including biology) must by definition exclude the supernatural.

actually the answer isn’t the ‘supernatural’ rather as I alluded to earlier, a certain amount of variability is DESIGNED into the genome.

as far as ‘excluding the supernatural’ why? shouldn’t science go where the data leads?? and what is supernatural, and what is natural?? do you know???

all ‘science’ does is EXCLUDE GOD a priori

If you want to debate evidence for the age of the universe again though, I’ll be back later to give you another thumpin’

In any case, don’t forget the salt.

DarkCurrent on January 9, 2009 at 11:34 AM

‘another’..surely you jest!! and yes there are a lot of things out there that make you question the age of the universe…unless you’re a darwiniac of course…then time is the *magic* ingrediant…

of course to a biologist evolution is always the answer…

right4life on January 9, 2009 at 11:19 AM

The mechanism that enabled it could have evolved. It would be an extremely useful mechanism and conserved.
Of course to creationists, the supernatural is always the answer to any non-trivial question. As Gene Splice tried to explain to you, science (including biology) must by definition exclude the supernatural.
Frankly I’m not well educated in the field of biology. If you want to debate evidence for the age of the universe again though, I’ll be back later to give you another thumpin’

In any case, don’t forget the salt.

its obvious that ‘micro’ changes occur in the genome…and what is a species, lions and tigers can mate and produce a liger…

evolutionists use things like the nylon bug to INFER that macro changes CAN occur from micro changes..but there are no examples of this…in fact there is just the opposite example…the tuatara, with the fastest ‘micro’ evolution…its a living dinosaur…

That was interesting. To a non-biologist it seems like a plausible alternative theory in this case.

DarkCurrent on January 9, 2009 at 11:13 AM

of course to a biologist evolution is always the answer…

“Sounds a lot like the nylon bug always being touted. In the case of the nylon bug, information was lost and the new enzyme was many times less efficient than its precursor, making the minor advantage null.

1. The bug went from 100% efficiency to 2% efficiency to metabolize.
2. The bug lost genetic info as a result of a frameshift.
3. The bug has a lower reproductive rate and efficiency.
4. The bug cannot survive amongst the parent species.
5. The bug acquired no functional divergence.

An increase of information requires functional divergence without information loss. Going from metabolic function to metabolic function is not considered functional divergence. Going from, say, a sequence that codes for a metabolic function to a sequence that codes for oxygen transport would be considered ‘functional divergence.’ ”

link

you might find this interesting..

nylon

antibiotic resistance

right4life on January 9, 2009 at 11:05 AM

That was interesting. To a non-biologist it seems like a plausible alternative theory in this case.

The problem with this argument is that Miller fails to show that the construction/evolution of nylonase from its precursor actually requires CSI at all. As I develop the concept, CSI requires a certain threshold of complexity to be achieved (500 bits, as I argue in my book No Free Lunch). It’s not at all clear that this threshold is achieved here (certainly Miller doesn’t compute the relevant numbers). Nor is it clear that in the evolution of nylonase that anything like pure neo-Darwinism was operating. Instead, we see something much more like what James Shapiro describes as “natural genetic engineering” (go here). And how do systems that do their own genetic engineering arise? According to Shapiro, Darwinism (whether neo or otherwise) offers no insight here.

link

It’s an example of the evolution of new kind of bacteria.

DarkCurrent on January 9, 2009 at 10:43 AM

post your proof that its a ‘new’ kind of bacteria…

you might find this interesting..

nylon

antibiotic resistance