Scientists Flood The Flagellum Engine

Creation-Evolution Headlines ^ | 2/10/03 | Creation-Evolution Headlines

[Buckeye Bomber]

Why should I, a college student majoring in psychology and political science, with a few biology classes under my belt, waste my time convincing an idiot with strong religious convictions that his beliefs on the origin of the world and the life on it is false? It's beyond use. You can't defeat religious beliefs with reason and science. Religion is on a whole other plain of being and of thinking. Yet you seem to be believe the scientific community shares your little belief. There may be a few holdovers from the days when we had the four humours and Eve came from Adam's rib, but overall, most scientists have long since rejected your religious dogma. Science will not go backwards to the Dark Ages with you and your ilk. It may advance forward, and improve on Darwin's original theory, but science does not go back.

[PatrickHenry]

Placemarker.

[Myrddin]

motors, engines, machines...Are we talking biology or engineering here?

This is precisely why I pursued a degree in Molecular Biology at UCSD. All the little control systems are not that different from machines or computer software. Which is why I'm a software engineer today. The industry was too immature in 1976. It may be time to switch back to my original career path. Especially with all the IT work being sent to India.

[Kevin Curry]

In the future, perhaps now, a very clever scientist might manipulate the proteins and molocules to alter a biomechanical "engine" or completely reform it. Yet, unless the tinkerer were to disclose what he had done, a Darwinian coming across the newly engineered change would conclude that it was due to random, blind chance. He would refuse to entertain any suggestion that the change was quite deliberately designed.

[Old Professer]

motors, engines, machines...Are we talking biology or engineering here?

I think what we're talking about is engineering biology.

The manufacture of living machines on a micro-level.

[Buckeye Bomber]

So wait, you're saying that if we're able to trick scientists using very elaborate means, the scientists are obviously wrong? Wow, I really hope you don't have any kids. Evolution is really failing at eliminating ignorance from humans. I think creationists ought to focus on this oversight of evolutionary theory.

[rmmcdaniell]

You are not a scientist, you are not into evolution for the science, you are into evolution because of your irreligious beliefs. If you were in it for the science (and evolution were a scientific fact as evolutionists claim) then you would know how to defend it by giving scientific evidence for it.

So what your saying is that a REAL scientist would accept the bible as scientific proof of creation? And your also not being very honest in the way you cut up my post your were replying to; making it look like I meant something I didn't intend.

[rmmcdaniell]

He would refuse to entertain any suggestion that the change was quite deliberately designed.

That is because that kind of engineering is currently beyond human technology.

[gore3000]

Step 1) Find a college near you.

Another lame evolutionist asking opponents to do their work for them. You guys are losers.
The challenge still stands - disprove the following:

ALL NOBEL PRIZE WINNING DISCOVERIES IN THE FIELD OF BIOLOGY HAVE TENDED TO DISPROVE EVOLUTION

[gore3000]

Why should I, a college student majoring in psychology and political science, with a few biology classes under my belt, waste my time convincing an idiot with strong religious convictions that his beliefs on the origin of the world and the life on it is false?

It seems that asking evolutionists to back up their claims with facts is always a provocation to them and a reason to hurl insults and bash relition. While you claim evolution is science you can only defend it with excuses and insults. Clearly your adherence to evolution is theological not scientific. If you have nothing intelligent to say, it is much better to keep your mouth shut.

BTW - the challenge re: Nobel Prizes still stands.

[whattajoke]

For those of you playing at home trying to thwart Gore's oft repeated idiocy about the Nobel prize, let me give you a little tidbit to let you know what you're dealing with:

THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A NOBEL PRIZE GIVEN FOR BIOLOGY.

You'd think our blue buddy would know this by now, since he's been told a hundred times or so... Aside from that, others have taken the time to cull out the last few Nobels in medicine and chemistry and have shown him how they are predicated upon the fundamentals of evolution, but it doesn't work.

[whattajoke]

Interesting... I got my undergrad degree in biology, went on to get a masters in population dynamics... and ended up in the corporate world designing databases. Oddly enough, there are more parallels than most would think here too, since its all matrices, projections, and population (humans, now) modeling... with a lot less parameters too. Nice to know there are others with dusty bio degrees that have some twisted connection to our adult professions.

[Michael_Michaelangelo]

Who said there was a Nobel Prize awarded for Biology? He was talking about biological discoveries, like this one:

Nobel Prize for Cell Biology work

Did you take reading comprehension in college?

[whattajoke]

You: "Who said there was a Nobel Prize awarded for Biology?"

Huh?

Gore: "I have said that every Nobel Prize given in the field of biology has tended to disprove evolution."

You: "Did you take reading comprehension in college?"

I did not take, "how to read like a creationist," this is true. You got me. I also didn't take the companion course, "Advanced Yoga" where I understand the final exam is exhibiting the ability to shove one's head up one's arse.

[Michael_Michaelangelo]

How the Recent Discoveries Support a Designed Universe , by Dr. W. Bradley:

Link

[FourtySeven]

Yes.

[whattajoke]

And the creationists get craftier still. Congratulations must be given to MM for not linking one of the Usual Suspect links (AiG, ICR, etc). This one hides their organization a bit better, but it is part of "Telling the Truth." Boy, has there ever been a more misleading organization name? From their website:

"Telling the Truth is an ongoing Internet-based strategy pioneered by Christian Leadership Ministries (CLM), designed to pool the best of Christian scholarship and propel it to a global audience. Working together, CLM and our WebPartners present unique resources to a lost and confused world. From homosexuality to origins to theology and apologetics--millions of Internet users are confronted with thousands of messages from a biblical worldview. Through Telling the Truth sites, the gospel takes its rightful place among thought-provoking ideas related to today's burning issues."

Fair enough. Just wondering MM, do you agree with Walter L. Bradley's quote below? Sounds like evolution to me (since evolution doesnt pretend to answer the origins question):

It should be noted that the modern term "species" is foreign to the context of the Bible. Genesis tells us that God created every animal according to its own "kind." It is probable that there were far fewer "kinds" at the time of Creation than there are "species" today. Progressive Creationist Walter Bradley agrees that "God created the major types of animals and plant life and then used process to develop the tremendous variety of life forms we observe today." [Walter L. Bradley, Hermeneutics, Inerrancy and the Bible, edited by Earl Radmacher and Robert Preus (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1984), p. 290 -- emphasis added]

http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-c001.html

[Michael_Michaelangelo]

Actually, you misquoted the good Dr. He is only attributed with the following quote:

"God created the major types of animals and plant life and then used process to develop the tremendous variety of life forms we observe today."

The quote that precludes this one was from the website you mined the quote from.

But to answer your question, yes, I agree with the Dr.'s statement. The "variety" of life forms we see today can be attributed to the processes the Creator put in place that allow life forms to adapt and overcome....I see this as microevolution. The built-in ability to adapt and overcome, utlilizing the genetic makeup the life form was born with.

Need an example? Finches

[f.Christian]

The darwinian dichotomy (( darloserian )) . . .

evolution is a dead branch of science - - -

going to the fire // ash heap of history ! !


"yes' !


Evolution is even worse than that . . .

some kind of alien vine choking science // society .. .. ..

pulling it down === aids virus // typhoid // mad witch disease !

[whattajoke]

(serious) semantics question: Does the term "quote mining" always carry a negative connotation? I have felt that it does. Also, is it really "quote mining" if I supply the url?

Anyway, I thought the Dr's quote was fairly presented within the paragraph I cut and pasted.

Ok, so you accept there are natural processes, divined from god, driving "microevolution." Did god put those processes in place and leave it alone, or is he governing them 24-7? I'm asking you these things seriously, to get a better feel as to where you are coming from.