6days
New member
Hey Stuu.... No, the term is accurate.
-
This is a new section being rolled out to attract people interested in exploring the origins of the universe and the earth from a biblical perspective. Debate is encouraged and opposing viewpoints are welcome to post but certain rules must be followed. 1. No abusive tagging - if abusive tags are found - they will be deleted and disabled by the Admin team 2. No calling the biblical accounts a fable - fairy tale ect. This is a Christian site, so members that participate here must be respectful in their disagreement.
Bacterial resistance to antibiotics- what is the Creationist explanation?
- Thread starter chair
- Start date
6days
New member
As you were shown before Barbarian... and contradictory to your claim, Kurt Wise does not believe in horse evolution and mentions evidence against it. You were embarrassed last time and disappeared from this site for a couple months.
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
oh please please please
Right Divider
Body part
The atheist version of "evolution" requires that life magically "evolved" from non-life. And, of course, due to the impossible nature of that jump... they claim that all life is descended from a single common ancestor. To believe that life appears from non-life multiple times is all that much more impossible.
Last edited:
6days
New member
Evolutionists always start with the conclusion that 'evolution did it'. Science shows us that evolution did not do it.
A professor biology prof from University of Akron and the scientific director of McMaster’s Institute for Infectious Disease Research say“We think antibiotic resistance has appeared because we use antibiotics in the clinic,” said Barton. “But if you go to a site where the bacteria haven’t been exposed to any antibiotics, they turn out to be resistant to almost every drug we use in the clinic. That suggests resistance is not something that has emerged in the 20th century but something that has been hard-wired into bacteria for millions and potentially longer years.”
https://www.thespec.com/news-story/2...isolated-cave/
We need bacteria for our survival and they are programmed (Hard wired as the article says) to survive rapidly changing environments in order that life can exist on our planet. The vast majority of bacteria are beneficial and necessary, however...because creation has been corrupted, we now have sickness, suffering and death in our world.
I showed you that Wise does not accept the evidence for evolution but says that the horse series is "very good evidence for macroevolutionary theory." I even linked to the paper he wrote. Do you think no one noticed? Do you think everyone forgot? Would you like me go back and cite it again? You can't serve God by being deceptive. Learn to live with the truth.
You are one of the reasons unbelievers think Christians are dishonest. If you'll lie about this, what won't you lie about?
Turns out, favorable mutations don't arise in response to need. Luria and Delbruck got their Nobels for showing that favorable mutations evolve constantly. The only reason we see more of it today, is that more people are getting antibiotics, and this favors antibiotic mutants.
And remember what evolution is: "descent with modification" or more precisely "a change in allele frequency in a population over time." So as you realize, it's evolution.
Such mutations have always been happening. Because until recently, they offered no advantage to bacteria,they never because established in the population.
No. The ability to mutate and evolve is hard-wired into bacteria. Particular mutations are just errors that occasionally turn out to be useful in specific environments. Luria and Delbruck showed this in very clever experiments. Would you like to learn about that?
Understandably the origins of the first living things is not formulated as a scientific theory, but there are very plausible hypotheses based in very sound science. It is still early days for the difficult kinds of work that entails, and it would help very much if we could easily visit other planets like ours, which we can't.
But have you stopped to reflect on the hypocrisy of calling scientific hypothesis 'magic', when that is exactly what you are presenting in your alternative? You haven't even told us about the science of making humans from breathing into dirt, or a woman from a man's rib.
Stuart
Yes, I'm surprise that there isn't more of the 'Quantum mechanics is like magic, and our creation is like magic, so quantum mechanics is evidence for a creator' rhetoric. Is it possible that there are some topics on which YEC creationists feel they are not sufficiently well versed to comment?!
Stuart
I'm going with theories that unambiguously explain the evidence, whatever they are. Evolution by natural selection, choosing from variation caused by mutation, pretty much completely explains all the evidence. Do you have evidence that is not explained by it?
Stuart
I know. It tells us everything about creationists' inability to comprehend.
But what is the value of your disbelief? Have you realised yet that science would still be stuck in the Fourteenth Century if disbelief was a valid disproof?
Stuart
Right Divider
Body part
Perhaps you'd like to advance this "very plausible hypotheses based in very sound science" that we can discuss.
Irrelevant to our ability to discuss what we can actually know.
Note that in this same post you said "Understandably the origins of the first living things is not formulated as a scientific theory" and THEN you go on to say "calling scientific hypothesis 'magic'".
Sounds like you're totally confused about the issue.
As you mentioned already "Understandably the origins of the first living things is not formulated as a scientific theory"
The Creator of all things said that He did it. That is a valid origin theory.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis
But relevant to your mockery of science.
Your 'valid origin theory' is not a theory in the scientific use of that word. It is the evidence of things unseen, things hoped for, isn't it. It's nothing much to do with discovering what actually happened in natural history, or even in the past few thousands of years of human history.
Stuart
Last edited:
Just to clarify: Adaptation creates more diversity among the organisms that share a common ancestor population — more diversity equals less genetic integrity.
Turns out, they aren't even mutations. So you've gotten nothing right. Organisms adapt to their environment in ways that eliminate the possibility of random mutations and natural selection. Would you like to see that evidence again?
They'll hand out Nobels for anything.
As you learned, their work showed nothing of the kind.
Would you like it explained to you all over again?
And remember what the theory is: The idea that all living things are descended from a universal common ancestor by means of random mutations and natural selection.
Nope. It's the ability to adapt. Evidence, remember?
I showed you that they did nothing of the sort. I even linked to the paper he wrote. Do you think no one noticed? Do you think everyone forgot? Would you like me go back and cite it again? You can't serve God by being deceptive. Learn to live with the truth. You are one of the reasons unbelievers think Christians are dishonest. If you'll lie about this, what won't you lie about?
When we put a culture in a new environment, it reacts predictably and in the same time frame in every repeat of the experiment. How do random mutations and natural selection fit with the evidence?
Alate_One
Well-known member
(Barbarian notes that useful new mutations have always been happening)
No hardwiring required. He merely created a universe in which such wonderful things could emerge from the earth and evolve. God is much wiser and more powerful than YE creationists would like Him to be.
Sorry, science can't say anything at all about the supernatural. If your faith isn't sufficient, science can't help you out.
No hardwiring required. He merely created a universe in which such wonderful things could emerge from the earth and evolve. God is much wiser and more powerful than YE creationists would like Him to be.
Sorry, science can't say anything at all about the supernatural. If your faith isn't sufficient, science can't help you out.