|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Coffee House Musings on Creationist Topic Proposals | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 104 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
dwise1 writes:
If I had to prove that a negative number multiplied by a negative number equals a positive number, for example, I wouldn't even know where to start.
The only time that one should need to go through all the proofs of mathematics is when you are learning mathematics.The fact of common ancestry of species and the resultant relationships between species because of that has already been established.
Thank you for this excellent example of mendacious Darwinist propaganda. It is a LIE to say that UCD has been "established" as a "fact". UCD is merely a theory, and it will never be anything more than a theory.That's why only a fool would trust what Darwinoids say ... they lie all the time. No further research is needed -- except for exploring certain specific relationships, but that would not be done within the field of medical research. We already know that, so we can just simply use it.
What advancement in the treatment of disease has resulted from the "use" of the theory of UCD?
That means that the lack of explicit reinventing the wheel of common descent of species in medical research papers is they have more important things to do
Ya got that right! UCD has no practical use in medical science, so only an idiot or a delusional Darwinoid would waste time on it.
in that paper than to spend many of pages (hundreds, even, to do a complete job of it) to rederiving something that we already know.
... except the only thing you "know" about UCD is that it's a theory.
However, if one could do scientific research to try to refute common ancestry. Or to show that it has no use in medical research. So why hasn't that been done yet?
That question is none of my business. My question is different: I want to know if the theory of UCD has provided a practical advancement in medical science or applied biology ... I haven't encountered one yet. That was AZPaul3's question to you. (Note: Delusional research hypotheses based on UCD don't count as practical advancements ... in anything.)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 104 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
APauling writes:
It doesn't make any difference to medicine what the "relatedness of all species" is due to, so the "due to common descent" part of your comment is superfluous and irrelevant. medicine is predicated on the relatedness of all species due to common descent. You keep insisting that UCD is useful to medicine, but you can't cite even one example to support your claim. I've pointed out that glaring flaw to you many times, but you keep mindlessly presenting the same feeble argument, as if repeating it enough times will make it true. I'm sorry, APauling, but I've no choice but to conclude that you're a fool or you're mentally ill. the reality of common descent
"reality"? Firstly, you're an atheist Darwinoid, so obviously your opinion of "reality" is worthless. Secondly, UCD is merely a theory - you can't prove that it's "reality". Your ridiculous assertions are really quite APauling.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 104 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
Well said.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 104 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
wrongsmith writes:
It doesn't matter how the RNA-DNA mechanism originated ... medical science will make use of the mechanism regardless. The vaccines use the RNA-DNA mechanism that was originated by the Universal Common Descent organism. Think about it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 104 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
Your aptitude for comedy is as APauling as your aptitude for truth and reality.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 104 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
Theodorkic writes:
Yes. I know that. Even if your gotcha question was legitimate it would have no effect on UCD or the TOE. Btw, it's not "TOE" - it's ToE. Please do not make that mistake again.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 104 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
Funny cartoon. I like it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 104 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
Well said.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 104 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
Dredge writes:
Oh yeah ... if no one believed in UCD, no drugs or vaccines could be developed.nwr writes:
Yep, no doubt about it ... no one thought of deriving pharmaceutical effects from plants until they "discovered" that humans and potatoes evolved from the same organism. LOL!!
I'm old enough to remember an earlier time. Yes, there were still drugs back then, but most of them didn't work at all well. To find new drugs, they would test exotic plants to see if they had any useful pharmaceutical effects.And yes, there were vaccines back then, but there were few of them. There was no vaccine for measles, for mumps, for chicken pox, for polio. Childhood disease was a more serious problem than it is today.
Which drug or vaccine could not have been developed if no one had "discovered" that humans and potatoes evolved from the same organism (UCD)? ... and then explain why.
Many of the newer more effective drugs and vaccines that we have today are due to research into biology and biochemistry which started as a study of evolution and inheritance.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 104 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
Dredge writes:
Oh yeah ... if no one believed in UCD, no drugs or vaccines could be developed.nwr writes:
Mankind has been using "exotic plants" for their "pharmaceutical effects" for at least 4000 years. I'm old enough to remember an earlier time. Yes, there were still drugs back then, but most of them didn't work at all well. To find new drugs, they would test exotic plants to see if they had any useful pharmaceutical effects. Gee, I wonder how we did that without the theory of UCD. LOL!!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 104 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
So
nwr writes:
is the best answer you could come up with in response to my question in Message 1292 ... Trolls will troll. "Which drug or vaccine could not have been developed if no one had "discovered" that humans and potatoes evolved from the same organism (UCD)? ... and then explain why." Is it my imagination, or are you a genius?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 104 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
APauling writes:
I think what you're trying to say is, scientists don't need the theory of UCD to know how and why vaccines work. In which case, I agree.
Not the scientists planning the vaccines nor the chemists making it.They don't need your silly bullshit to know the vaccines work and why.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 104 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
Dredge writes:
If so, that means that - whether scientists accepted the theory of UCD or not - they would still have been able to develop the vaccine in the first place, doesn't it?wrongsmith writes:
What the hell are you talking about, wrongsmith? yes, once in a triple blue moon on Friday the 13th, in some unlikely year,they could stumble into a vaccine ... but they'd have to be looking for it. -- and if they didn't accept UCD,then their method of looking for it would still have to be consistent with the UCD RNA-DNA mechanism, using lab equipment and procedures that just so happened to not destroy any steps along the multi-year way. Explain why scientists need the theory of UCD to develop vaccines ... and try to keep it sane.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 104 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
wrongsmith writes:
I think you mean, "barking UP the wrong tree". barking down the wrong tree. No wonder they call you "wrongsmith" ... Never make that mistake again.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 104 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
Sarcasm requires a degree of intelligence to create.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024