|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Coffee House Musings on Creationist Topic Proposals | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 103 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
Stale writes:
Yeah yeah, Stale ... so you keep saying. If UCD is so important to biological and medical science, why is it that you can't cite even ONE EXAMPLE of how the UCD has made a practical contribution to biological or medical science? In understanding UCD and how it pervades all of biology, medical science is able to harness this knowledge to develop more drugs and vaccines and technologies and progression takes off at an incredible pace. Such is the power of knowledge and application. All you've got to offer to back up the Darwinist claim you've been brainwashed with is a dumb and irrelevant analogy about "nuts and bolts". Stale ... give up.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tanypteryx Member Posts: 4451 From: Oregon, USA Joined: Member Rating: 5.5
|
Sludge writes: Your Darwinist propaganda doesn't add up. According to Darwinist folklore, birds and fish, for example, "share common ancestry with humans", but birds and fish aren't used as models by medical science. Why not? Because mammals are closer relatives, once again showing the usefulness of UCD.
Gee, might it have something to do with the fact that there are other animals more genetically, anatomically and physiologically similar to humans than birds and fish ... rats and mice, for example Holy Crap! Do you not see the absurdity of this argument. The reason that mammals are more similar to humans is because of closer shared common ancestry and shared common ancestry is UCD.
Do you even understand my argument? Who's "challenging common ancestry"? If you are challenging UCD you are challenging common ancestry.Stop Tzar Vladimir the Condemned! What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python One important characteristic of a theory is that is has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --percy The reason that we have the scientific method is because common sense isn't reliable. -- Taq
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.6 |
Dredge writes: Oh really? The following comments agree with me, but according to you, they're all false: All of those quotes are backed by the knowledge that the similarities were produced by common ancestry and evolution. That's why those similarities are useful.
An explanation for why those genetic similarities exist (UCD) is not what makes those similarities useful to medical science. Speaking as someone who works in biomedical research, UCD is what makes those similarities useful. Conservation of sequence is something that has become quite important in comparing animal models.
... none of which is relevant to the discussion, which is not at all concerned with evidence for the theory of UCD. It is entirely relevant, whether you admit it or not.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.6
|
Dredge writes: According to Darwinist folklore, birds and fish, for example, "share common ancestry with humans", but birds and fish aren't used as models by medical science. Why not? Zebrafish are used as models in medical science. Birds aren't often used because they are expensive to house and have longer generation times. Why Use Zebrafish to Study Human Diseases? | NIH Intramural Research Program
Gee, might it have something to do with the fact that there are other animals more genetically, anatomically and physiologically similar to humans than birds and fish ... rats and mice, for example The only reason that some animals are objectively more like humans than others is UCD and evolution. There is no reason why such a pattern would exist if species were created separately. It is only the nested hierarchy produced by UCD and evolution that we get these relationships.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.6
|
Dredge writes:
Yeah yeah, Stale ... so you keep saying. If UCD is so important to biological and medical science, why is it that you can't cite even ONE EXAMPLE of how the UCD has made a practical contribution to biological or medical science?
I'm betting you never searched papers to see if this is true? quote:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 442 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined:
|
Dredge writes:
Umm... they share genetic similarities because they're related - i.e. they have common ancestors. That's what "related" means. Taq writes:
Nonsense. Those animal models are used simply because they share genetics similarities with humans. As I said earlier, these models are used because the animals used are thought to share common ancestry with humans.Come all of you cowboys all over this land, I'll teach you the law of the Ranger's Command: To hold a six shooter, and never to run As long as there's bullets in both of your guns. -- Woody Guthrie
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18350 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.0 |
Dredge, my man! I thought of you as I read this article. For the record, I have nothing against the RCC as a group of people, but I will never elevate one Christian Church above any other.
As Christian nationalism digs in, differing views surface I have seen good and bad Popes. History is full of them. My personal favorite was John Paul II."A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." ~Mark Twain " *** “…far from science having buried God, not only do the results of science point towards his existence, but the scientific enterprise itself is validated by his existence.”- Dr.John Lennox “A God without wrath brought men without sin into a Kingdom without judgment through the ministrations of a Christ without a Cross.” “The most difficult subjects can be explained to the most slow-witted man if he has not formed any idea of them already; but the simplest thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly persuaded that he knows already, without a shadow of a doubt, what is laid before him.” — Leo Tolstoy, The Kingdom of God is Within You
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 103 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
Phat writes:
Why was JPII your favourite Pope?
I have seen good and bad Popes. History is full of them. My personal favorite was John Paul II.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 103 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
Dredge writes:
Note: For the record, UCD does provide an explanation for why those genetic similarities exist, but that is irrelevant to the discussion.Tanypteryx writes:
Relatedness doesn't need the theory of UCD in order to exist. Not to us. It is central to the argument. It will keep coming up, since you keep trying to deflect attention from it. We use it every day, we talk about it every day, we compare relatedness in labs around the world every day. Relatedness doesn't need the theory of UCD in order to provide practical uses in biological and medical science. You seem to have trouble accepting those facts ... it's as though you have some weird psychological dependence on the theory of UCD and can't think without it. Typical atheist, in other words.
You repeating the same erroneous claim over and over and stamping your feet doesn't change the fact that scientists will use the UCD until a better tool is introduced. You and your argument are completely irrelevant.
Despite all your Darwinist rhetoric, you can't cite even one example of the theory of UCD providing a practical use in biological or medical science. The theory of UCD works well as an atheist bedtime story, but it's done nothing to advance science in any practical way.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tanypteryx Member Posts: 4451 From: Oregon, USA Joined: Member Rating: 5.5
|
Relatedness doesn't need the theory of UCD in order to exist. There is no issue of need, the reality is that UCD explains the relatedness.
Relatedness doesn't need the theory of UCD in order to provide practical uses in biological and medical science. And yet we use UCD anyway, because it explains the relatedness.
it's as though you have some weird psychological dependence on the theory of UCD and can't think without it Well, you suck at making psychological assessments. I recognize reality and would rather describe it accurately, than distort it as you do.
you can't cite even one example of the theory of UCD providing a practical use in biological or medical science. Despite your creationist rhetoric, you have not offered a single plausible explanation for the relatedness that we see in the life on this planet, UCD explains it all wrapped with a nice bow. Your prayers are not convincing anyone. Stop Tzar Vladimir the Condemned! What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python One important characteristic of a theory is that is has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --percy The reason that we have the scientific method is because common sense isn't reliable. -- Taq
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 103 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
I feel sorry for the anti-Catholic pastors mentioned in that article and the gullible crowds who listen to them.
Satan has thoroughly deceived them ... which probably wasn't that hard, considering the prevalence of mental illness in evangelical so-called Christianity.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
xongsmith Member Posts: 2587 From: massachusetts US Joined: Member Rating: 7.0
|
more Dredgings:
Relatedness doesn't need the theory of UCD in order to exist. Relatedness doesn't need the theory of UCD in order to provide practical uses in biological and medical science. So you seem to CONCEDE that relatedness is needed. Good boy. But how do you KNOW they're related, Dredge?Here, I'll answer for you: By looking at their DNA. Since you are the one who is making the claim of NOT needing UCD, you have to provide evidence to support your claim. So to provide an example of relatedness NOT needing UCD, you now have to provide 2 or more separatelyoccurring instances of DNA that originated in the primordial organic molecular past, from different ancestors, that are now miraculously close enough to be considered to be "related". Go for it! The Nobel Committee is waiting. Or not.... Game, Set and Match. Give it up, dude. You LOST."I'm the Grim Reaper now, Mitch. Step aside." Death to #TzarVladimirtheCondemned! Enjoy every sandwich! - xongsmith, 5.7dawkins scale
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 103 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
xongsmith writes:
You still have no idea what my argument is about. Are you joking or are you really this dumb?
Since you are the one who is making the claim of NOT needing UCD, you have to provide evidence to support your claim. So to provide an example of relatedness NOT needing UCD, you now have to provide 2 or more separately occurring instances of DNA that originated in the primordial organic molecular past, from different ancestors, that are now miraculously close enough to be considered to be "related".
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.6
|
Dredge writes: Relatedness doesn't need the theory of UCD in order to exist. Then please tell us what pattern of similarities we should see if UCD is true if it isn't a tree-like pattern of similarities. From where I sit, the pattern of relatedness is exactly what we would expect from UCD and evolution. Prove me wrong.
Despite all your Darwinist rhetoric, you can't cite even one example of the theory of UCD providing a practical use in biological or medical science. I already did that.
quote:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9202 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.4
|
Drudge is a classic ignorant creo troll. Makes outlandish claims, then shown he is wrong, demands more evidence. Then when presented with evidence demands different or more specific evidence which is then presented. This process continues til the troll claims victory and makes a new outlandish claim.
What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence. -Christopher Hitchens Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts "God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness. If your viewpoint has merits and facts to back it up why would you have to lie?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024