Bacterial resistance to antibiotics- what is the Creationist explanation?

[7djengo7]

I don't think you have established that any such thing exists

Every thing exists.

 

[7djengo7]

Well, you used the word supernatural. What do you mean by that?

So did you, Stuu. You used the word, 'supernatural':

I don't think you have established that any such thing exists, so there's not much to disprove.

What did you intend as the antecedent to your phrase, "any such thing", if not Right Divider's phrase, "the supernatural"?

Your atheism does cause you problems with the supernatural. Perhaps you'd like to disprove the supernatural scientifically. That would be fun.

I don't think you have established that [the supernatural] exists, so there's not much to disprove.

So yeah, Stuu, you used the word, 'supernatural'. What do you mean by that?

What do you mean by the phrase, "the supernatural", when you say, "I don't think you have established that [the supernatural] exists, so there's not much to disprove"?

 

[Stuu]

Beyond the natural. Explainable by natural laws.

I think you mean not explainable by natural laws. But I don't think you really know what that means. I still don't. 'Supernatural' is just a lazy platitude, isn't it. It doesn't actually mean anything even though it sounds impressive.

God is the creator and sustainer of all things. That you know nothing about Him is too bad.

So your god is everything. It is not any one thing in particular. It is both love and hate. It sustains both child joy and child cancer.

No, you don't.

Although there isn't yet a final explanation for the first living cell, evolution by natural selection via sexual reproduction explains the existence of humans entirely. There is no other explanation.

Ribs and breathing into dirt is for the ignorant Bronze Age imagination.

You need to take some time to do your own research on the topic.

In what way is one god false and another true?

I thought that you wanted to stick to science and not just some personal philosophy.

I'm glad you expect me to have the answers.

If life was produced by "random chance" what makes "one species capable of thinking about the universe" anything more than just random activity in the brain?

Life is not produced by random chance. Mutations might be random, but natural selection is exactly the opposite of random. It is very exacting. It applies the very strict criterion that for your genes to be passed on to be part of humanity in the future you must be fit to survive and reproduce in your environment. It must be obvious to anyone who thinks about it. The environment shapes a species in the same way a hole in the road shapes its puddle. When the environment changes, the species will change. The main reason so many species are going extinct is we are changing the environment faster than natural selection can respond.

Your childishness has long since lost its entertainment value.

If you have any questions that would help you to understand the science more clearly, you only have to ask.

Stuart

 

[Stuu]

Whenever fools such as yourself say things such as, "There is no God", "There is no god", "There are no gods", "God doesn't exist", or "I don't believe in God", or "I don't believe in a god", or "I don't believe in gods", etc., you have your work ahead of you to explain what (if anything) you mean by "God", and/or "a god", and/or "gods". Now, of course, it's not necessary that, when you say "I don't believe in God", or "I don't believe in a god", you mean something; for indeed, fools such as yourself are quite in the habit of saying things meaninglessly.

You seem to have created, and attempted to shoot down, yet another strawman of what I believe.

Had you considered asking me what I believe?

Stuart

 

[Right Divider]

I think you mean not explainable by natural laws.

Yes, that is what I meant.

But I don't think you really know what that means.

Yes, I do know what it means.

I still don't.

It's pretty simple. Why can't you understand it?

'Supernatural' is just a lazy platitude, isn't it.

No, it isn't. It's an accurate description of things that cannot be explained by the "natural".

It doesn't actually mean anything even though it sounds impressive.

Things that you don't understand sound impressive to you? :french:

So your god is everything.

As the Creator of all things, you might expect that.

It is not any one thing in particular. It is both love and hate. It sustains both child joy and child cancer.

God did not create hate. God is love. Hate is an opposition to God.

Although there isn't yet a final explanation for the first living cell, evolution by natural selection via sexual reproduction explains the existence of humans entirely. There is no other explanation.

Once AGAIN, your bluff and bluster is not impressing us.

Ribs and breathing into dirt is for the ignorant Bronze Age imagination.

The Creator has spoken, ignore Him at your own risk.

In what way is one god false and another true?

You've gone far enough off topic already.

I'm glad you expect me to have the answers.

And yet you keep spouting your philosophy.

Life is not produced by random chance. Mutations might be random, but natural selection is exactly the opposite of random. It is very exacting.

• Natural selection can only select what already exists.
• Natural selection is a process of removal.
• Mutations are damage not a creative force.

It applies the very strict criterion that for your genes to be passed on to be part of humanity in the future you must be fit to survive and reproduce in your environment. It must be obvious to anyone who thinks about it. The environment shapes a species in the same way a hole in the road shapes its puddle. When the environment changes, the species will change. The main reason so many species are going extinct is we are changing the environment faster than natural selection can respond.

Once again, the environment can only work on what already exists.

If you have any questions that would help you to understand the science more clearly, you only have to ask.

I understand science quite well. It is you that needs some education.

 

[Stuu]

Yes, I do know what it means.

Can you communicate what it means then, to say that there is something that is not explainable by natural laws? If by natural laws you mean science, then there are certainly things that have not yet been explained by science. But you seem to be going one step further by claiming there are things that cannot be explained by science.

Things that you don't understand sound impressive to you?

No, a platitude is something that is designed to appear impressive, but isn't. The term 'supernatural' is meant to sound impressive but it actually means nothing.

God did not create hate. God is love. Hate is an opposition to God.

I don't think you can have it both ways. Either your god is everything or it is not. If hate is possible then according to you your god created that possibility.

Once AGAIN, your bluff and bluster is not impressing us.

I think you should speak for yourself, not for 'us'.

I would be less impressive if you could give a different, better explanation for how humans came to be. But apparently you agree that humans can be made from breathing into dirt and ribs, which would be hilarious if it was not taken so seriously by so many otherwise intelligent people.

You've gone far enough off topic already.

I acknowledge the primacy of the OP, but are there some aspects of your beliefs you would rather not discuss?

Natural selection can only select what already exists.

Correct.

Natural selection is a process of removal.

Wrong. Natural selection is the process by which gene frequencies change. Some go down, others go up.

Mutations are damage not a creative force.

Wrong. It is about probability. Large mutations have a higher probability of being damaging. Whatever animal or plant it happened in was already fit, so large changes are likely to be bad. But the smaller the change, the closer to 50% probability there is of it being a tiny improvement. It would be an improvement if it aids survival and reproduction. Tiny improvements accumulate by natural selection.

It's also about compromise. People who carry the mutation for sickle cell anaemia don't get malaria. Malaria has killed half of all humans who ever lived, so it's a huge selection pressure. If you have one copy of the mutated allele from one parent then you are protected. But anyone who inherits the sickle cell mutation from both parents gets sickle cell disease, which has many dangerous complications and is life-limiting.

Would you say the mutation that causes sickle cell disease is damaging or beneficial?

Stuart

 

[Right Divider]

Can you communicate what it means then, to say that there is something that is not explainable by natural laws? If by natural laws you mean science, then there are certainly things that have not yet been explained by science. But you seem to be going one step further by claiming there are things that cannot be explained by science.

Once AGAIN, you try to conflate "science" with "a naturalistic, materialistic world view".

So, YES, there are MANY things that cannot be explained by a naturalistic, materialistic world view.

No, a platitude is something that is designed to appear impressive, but isn't. The term 'supernatural' is meant to sound impressive but it actually means nothing.

No, it is not "meant to sound impressive". It is simply an accurate description of a fact.

I don't think you can have it both ways. Either your god is everything or it is not. If hate is possible then according to you your god created that possibility.

I don't need to "have it both ways". Evil is not something that God created. It is in direct opposition to God and His goodness.

You seem to be confusing Christianity with pantheism (see highlighted text).

I think you should speak for yourself, not for 'us'.

We are not amused.

I would be less impressive if you could give a different, better explanation for how humans came to be.

I already have. It's in the Bible.

But apparently you agree that humans can be made from breathing into dirt and ribs, which would be hilarious if it was not taken so seriously by so many otherwise intelligent people.

And yet you believe that man sprang up from the ground (i.e., dirt). You are a hypocrite.

I acknowledge the primacy of the OP, but are there some aspects of your beliefs you would rather not discuss?

:rotfl:

Correct.

:banana:

Wrong. Natural selection is the process by which gene frequencies change. Some go down, others go up.

You don't even know what the word selection means.

Wrong. It is about probability. Large mutations have a higher probability of being damaging. Whatever animal or plant it happened in was already fit, so large changes are likely to be bad. But the smaller the change, the closer to 50% probability there is of it being a tiny improvement. It would be an improvement if it aids survival and reproduction. Tiny improvements accumulate by natural selection.

You can repeat that fantasy until you're blue in the face. It's simply not true.

It's also about compromise. People who carry the mutation for sickle cell anaemia don't get malaria. Malaria has killed half of all humans who ever lived, so it's a huge selection pressure. If you have one copy of the mutated allele from one parent then you are protected. But anyone who inherits the sickle cell mutation from both parents gets sickle cell disease, which has many dangerous complications and is life-limiting.

Would you say the mutation that causes sickle cell disease is damaging or beneficial?

Mutations are vastly damaging to the point of destruction for the carrier of those mutations. That you evolutionists think that this damage is the magic creative force of the animal kingdom is hilariously anti-science.

 

[7djengo7]

You seem to have created, and attempted to shoot down, yet another strawman of what I believe.

Of what (if anything) are you accusing me of accusing you of believing?

Had you considered asking me what I believe?

Stuart

Had you considered that I don't need to ask your permission in order to read, and comment on, what you write on TOL? Do you not believe anything you write on TOL?

 

[7djengo7]

'Supernatural' is just a lazy platitude, isn't it. It doesn't actually mean anything even though it sounds impressive.

There, you have admitted that what you said, below, "doesn't actually mean anything":

I don't think you have established that any such thing exists, so there's not much to disprove.

You used the phrase, 'the supernatural', as the antecedent to your phrase, "any such thing". Though you used the word, 'supernatural'--though you used the phrase, 'the supernatural'--you are now admitting that you did not actually mean anything by it.

So, what motivated you to say, "I don't think you have established that any such thing exists, so there's not much to disprove", meaninglessly, as you've done? What motivates you to say things meaninglessly, as you're in the habit of doing, Stuu?

 

[7djengo7]

Once AGAIN, your bluff and bluster is not impressing us.

I think you should speak for yourself, not for 'us'.

Right Divider calls it as it is, Stuu: your bluff and bluster really is not impressing us.

 

[7djengo7]

Either your god is everything or it is not.

So your god is everything.

If anyone at all, or anything at all--whom, or what, are you calling "your god", here, Stuu?

 

[7djengo7]

In what way is one god false and another true?

Here, Stuu, you are calling at least two things "god" (unless, once again, you're merely speaking meaninglessly, as you're in the habit of doing quite a lot). So, what things are you calling "god", Stuu? And, if more than merely two, then just how many things do you call "god", Stuu?

 

[Yorzhik]

As Barbarian mentioned, superbugs have made it outside hospitals. So the obvious question is... why don't they take over? why aren't superbugs the norm since antibiotics don't work on them? They can't be stopped!

Actually, they can be stopped. The outbreaks outside of hospitals are in places where they can get a foothold... but not much more. They die off when faced with normal bacteria. It because they aren't super at all. They are actually handicapped, which is why they, in general, can't get out of hospitals.

 

[chair]

As Barbarian mentioned, superbugs have made it outside hospitals. So the obvious question is... why don't they take over? why aren't superbugs the norm since antibiotics don't work on them? They can't be stopped!

Actually, they can be stopped. The outbreaks outside of hospitals are in places where they can get a foothold... but not much more. They die off when faced with normal bacteria. It because they aren't super at all. They are actually handicapped, which is why they, in general, can't get out of hospitals.

There is no such thing as "super" bacteria, or "handicapped" bacteria. All there are are bacteria that have adapted to their environment.

 

[Right Divider]

There is no such thing as "super" bacteria, or "handicapped" bacteria. All there are are bacteria that have adapted to their environment.

Yep.... directionless changes within the limits of the original genetics.

 

[chair]

Yep.... directionless changes within the limits of the original genetics.

...they are variations on the original genetics. And they are directional in the sense that the bacteria become better suited to their environment.

 

[Right Divider]

...they are variations on the original genetics. And they are directional in the sense that the bacteria become better suited to their environment.

Completely compatible with the creationist model and NOT in support of "evolution".

 

[chair]

Completely compatible with the creationist model and NOT in support of "evolution".

Repeat the mantra, and you may get into a trance. You won't change reality.

 

[User Name]

How do the bacteria become resistant to antibiotics?

Tangential to the topic, but some may find this interesting:

New CRISPR-based system targets amplified antibiotic-resistant genes

Genetically engineered plasmid can be used to fight antimicrobial resistance

 

[Right Divider]

Repeat the mantra, and you may get into a trance. You won't change reality.

If you can't handle the truth, just ignore it.... is that your method?