Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Why can creationists give straight answers?
derwood
Member (Idle past 1876 days)
Posts: 1457
Joined: 12-27-2001


Message 31 of 56 (15836)
08-21-2002 11:18 AM
Reply to: Message 25 by Fred Williams
08-20-2002 5:54 PM


[QUOTE]Originally posted by Fred Williams:
quote:
It is flawed because you wildly and illogically extrapolate some commonplace activities as 'proof' that the ancient Hebrews had in-depth knowledge about microbes.
You still have failed to give a decent rebuttal (only a strawman) why my leprosy claim is flawed. For anyone interested, here is the passage in question:
quote:
Bacteria
Some time after I wrote these web pages, a Bible skeptic unwittingly showed me yet another example of advanced scientific/medical knowledge in the Bible. He posted a message on a discussion board that ridiculed some verses in Leviticus 13 and 14 that mention leprosy on walls and on garments. He felt this was silly and an error since leprosy is a human disease. What this skeptic was unaware of is the fact that leprosy is a bacteria, a living organism, that certainly can live on walls and garments! How often and how sweet it is when we see skeptic's attempts to denigrate God and the Bible turned around such that they end up glorifying God!
[/I]
Scott, the onus is on you to show this was not advanced knowledge of that time.[/quote]
Actually, I believe that the onus is on you to demonstrate that the REASON that the Hebes were told to wash the tapesties and such is BECAUSE they KNEW about bacteria and that the bacteria might be living on them.
The only 'strawman' is your laughably bizarre extrapolation claim that the Bible teaches about microbes.
quote:
Oh - and Fred - did you follow the link to the alignment?
Yes I did, but it didn’t have much bearing on the debate since you already admitted some was the more appropriate depiction. Besides, I didn’t have a problem with your belief that indels (specifically insertions) represent the largest per site numbers. I would suggest however that this particular insertion was likely a non-random mutation. [/QUOTE]
Your suggestions are based on your limited knowledge of the topic. Care to provide any reasonable evidence?
But I am glad that, for now anyway, you have decided to abandon your silly tiurades about molecular phylogenetics methods. You were really looking foolish. I will be archiving this thread, too, for future use, as I am confident that I will, at some time, have to drag it out again to show your underhanded 'debate' tactics to a new audience.
[This message has been edited by SLPx, 08-23-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Fred Williams, posted 08-20-2002 5:54 PM Fred Williams has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by Fred Williams, posted 08-21-2002 8:19 PM derwood has replied

  
derwood
Member (Idle past 1876 days)
Posts: 1457
Joined: 12-27-2001


Message 32 of 56 (15838)
08-21-2002 11:21 AM
Reply to: Message 30 by mark24
08-21-2002 10:29 AM


Alright gene, mark, john and randy:
Now, you know that it is not fair to pull the rug out from under the fundamentalist, especially when they are going to such lengths to try to prop up their fantasies....

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by mark24, posted 08-21-2002 10:29 AM mark24 has not replied

  
Fred Williams
Member (Idle past 4855 days)
Posts: 310
From: Broomfield
Joined: 12-17-2001


Message 33 of 56 (15867)
08-21-2002 7:15 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by John
08-20-2002 9:55 PM


quote:
But the real issue is whether or not the Isrealites had advanced knowledge of microbes.
I am not saying Isrealites had advanced knowledge of microbes. This is Scott Page’s strawman. I am saying the Bible’s treatment of leprosy is yet another example where the Bible provides knowledge not available to man at the time. I’m sure the Isrealites had no idea why God commanded them to take certain actions regarding leprosy.
quote:
This is not supported by the fact that they burned houses and clothing. Such action is a pretty normal reaction to combatting disease where the source is not known. The same reactions are observed during the various plagues of the middle ages.
Same reactions? Please provide your evidence for this. The only documented evidence I have from the middle ages is that some church fathers in Vienna began quarantine based on Leviticus, and their success was recognized and copied in other areas.
quote:
Here is a problem. The Egyptians, Indians and Chinese all knew that leprosy was an infectious disease.
Please provide evidence for this. I have heard examples where some cultures would isolate whole families, but this obviously was not the ideal solution. The Bible got it precisely right, isolating only the patient and requiring the attending priest to wash himself.
quote:
By the way, the word 'leprosy' used in the Bible covered a many different diseases, not just the one known as leprosy today.
Do you have a specific Bible verse where the use of leprosy appears to cover a different disease? My search yielded 28 hits of the word leprosy, and a quick check of each context appeared to support the modern version, though I’m no leprosy expert. I looked up the Hebrew word used, and it is defined in Strong’s Hebrew dictionary as leprosy. That’s it. Normally this dictionary is very reliable, so I would have expected to find additional definitions, such as or pertaining to skin disease if what you claim is valid.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by John, posted 08-20-2002 9:55 PM John has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by Randy, posted 08-21-2002 10:11 PM Fred Williams has not replied
 Message 38 by derwood, posted 08-22-2002 11:53 AM Fred Williams has not replied

  
Fred Williams
Member (Idle past 4855 days)
Posts: 310
From: Broomfield
Joined: 12-17-2001


Message 34 of 56 (15870)
08-21-2002 7:57 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by Randy
08-21-2002 12:54 AM


Hello Randy! There are two things that drag you out of the woodwork, 2LOT and Noah’s ark. You must have only two books on your shelf: 2LOT for Dummies, and Noah’s ark for Dummies.
quote:
I should point out that while leprosy (from Mycobacterium leprae) is an infectious disease it is in fact very difficult to contract. It requires long and intimate contact with infected people and even then not all contract it. I have asked some dermatologists who have experience with this disease and they agree that it would not be possible to contract it from walls.
Impossible? If the bacteria can live for 3 weeks or more, it is certainly possible. Unlikely? Perhaps. Question: If you were forced to live with a leper, would you regularly wash yourself, your clothes, and anything in your room you think he might have rubbed up against? Case closed.
(BTW, there are also symbolic reasons for cleaning the walls that have to do with sin and atonement, but no need to get into that Bible study here).
quote:
If you are going to put forward some supposed Biblical knowledge of leprosy one might also point out that the Biblically prescribed treatment is totally worthless.
It is? You must have missed the part where Hyssop oil has been shown to contain 50% antifungal and antibacterial agents.
quote:
BTW which of Noah's children or daughters-in-law do YECs think was the leper? I don't see how else the disease could have survived the worldwide flood.
Who said the disease existed before the flood? Surely you are aware the vast majority of bacteria are beneficial ecological agents? You are also surely aware that mutation occurs? I submit that the Mycobacterium leprae bacillus is a bacteria that was once a useful ecological agent before the flood, and mutated after the flood into its nasty form we see today.
I believe the post-flood environment resulted in an increase in harmful mutations. There is both Biblical and scientific evidence for this, but I obviously cannot be dogmatic on it. It is entirely reasonable and possible that a post-flood world would see a rapid increase in mutated bacteria, including undesirables such as Mycobacterium leprae.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by Randy, posted 08-21-2002 12:54 AM Randy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by Randy, posted 08-21-2002 10:04 PM Fred Williams has not replied
 Message 41 by derwood, posted 08-22-2002 12:09 PM Fred Williams has not replied
 Message 54 by Budikka, posted 10-27-2002 9:45 PM Fred Williams has not replied

  
Fred Williams
Member (Idle past 4855 days)
Posts: 310
From: Broomfield
Joined: 12-17-2001


Message 35 of 56 (15871)
08-21-2002 8:19 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by derwood
08-21-2002 11:18 AM


As is common my young apprentice ran out of steam, so he returned to ole-reliable: blame it on ‘debate’ tactics. LOL!
quote:
I will be archiving this thread, too, for future use, as I am confident that I will, at some time, have to drag it out again to show your underhanded 'debate' tactics to a new audience.
No, I suspect you will be true to form and save if for some future misrepresentation. Even your protg Robert, who I originally went round-and-round on the SNP noise issue, did not resort to making things up, like your allegation I claimed SNPs could be removed via a single taxon DNA sequence. That was some twisting of my words. You da man!
But on to more important matters. I must say I continue to be thrilled and flattered that you take such great interest and hang on my every word. My sincerest appreciation, my young apprentice.
Your idol,
Fred
PS to evos: Things are heating up at work again, so I may not be able promptly respond. This thread is pretty much exhausted anyway.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by derwood, posted 08-21-2002 11:18 AM derwood has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by derwood, posted 08-22-2002 12:44 PM Fred Williams has not replied

  
Randy
Member (Idle past 6247 days)
Posts: 420
From: Cincinnati OH USA
Joined: 07-19-2002


Message 36 of 56 (15878)
08-21-2002 10:04 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by Fred Williams
08-21-2002 7:57 PM


quote:
Hello Randy! There are two things that drag you out of the woodwork, 2LOT and Noah’s ark. You must have only two books on your shelf: 2LOT for Dummies, and Noah’s ark for Dummies.
Well here’s Fred again with his fairy tales. I do have Noah’s ark for dummies all right but Woodmorappe gave it a slightly different title, something about a feasibility study. I also have Sarfati’ book, Creationism for the Complete Idiot but he also gave it a slightly different title (Refuting Evolution).
quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I should point out that while leprosy (from Mycobacterium leprae) is an infectious disease it is in fact very difficult to contract. It requires long and intimate contact with infected people and even then not all contract it. I have asked some dermatologists who have experience with this disease and they agree that it would not be possible to contract it from walls.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Impossible? If the bacteria can live for 3 weeks or more, it is certainly possible. Unlikely? Perhaps. Question: If you were forced to live with a leper, would you regularly wash yourself, your clothes, and anything in your room you think he might have rubbed up against? Case closed.
What I said was told to me by dermatologists including one who has practiced in Africa and has direct experience dealing with and treating leprosy. You can’t contract it from walls period. Below is what the Meck Manual says about it.
Leprosy - Infections - Merck Manuals Consumer Version
Isolation, however, is unnecessary. Leprosy is contagious only in the untreated lepromatous form, and even then it isn't easily transmitted to others. Furthermore, most people are naturally immune to leprosy, and only those in a household with an infected person for an extended time are at risk of developing an infection. Doctors and nurses who treat people with leprosy do not appear to be at increased risk.
quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you are going to put forward some supposed Biblical knowledge of leprosy one might also point out that the Biblically prescribed treatment is totally worthless.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is? You must have missed the part where Hyssop oil has been shown to contain 50% antifungal and antibacterial agents.
The first available treatment for leprosy was dapsone and it only controlled the disease not cured it. With modern multiple antibiotic therapy the disease can now be cured. Hyssop is totally worthless for treating leprosy and I don’t think bird’s blood would help much either, even if it was blessed by a priest.
quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BTW which of Noah's children or daughters-in-law do YECs think was the leper? I don't see how else the disease could have survived the worldwide flood.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Who said the disease existed before the flood? Surely you are aware the vast majority of bacteria are beneficial ecological agents? You are also surely aware that mutation occurs? I submit that the Mycobacterium leprae bacillus is a bacteria that was once a useful ecological agent before the flood, and mutated after the flood into its nasty form we see today
I believe the post-flood environment resulted in an increase in harmful mutations. There is both Biblical and scientific evidence for this, but I obviously cannot be dogmatic on it. It is entirely reasonable and possible that a post-flood world would see a rapid increase in mutated bacteria, including undesirables such as Mycobacterium leprae.
You can believe this absurd fantasy all you want. Just don’t call it science.
Randy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by Fred Williams, posted 08-21-2002 7:57 PM Fred Williams has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by derwood, posted 08-22-2002 12:04 PM Randy has not replied

  
Randy
Member (Idle past 6247 days)
Posts: 420
From: Cincinnati OH USA
Joined: 07-19-2002


Message 37 of 56 (15880)
08-21-2002 10:11 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by Fred Williams
08-21-2002 7:15 PM


quote:
Do you have a specific Bible verse where the use of leprosy appears to cover a different disease? My search yielded 28 hits of the word leprosy, and a quick check of each context appeared to support the modern version, though I’m no leprosy expert. I looked up the Hebrew word used, and it is defined in Strong’s Hebrew dictionary as leprosy. That’s it. Normally this dictionary is very reliable, so I would have expected to find additional definitions, such as or pertaining to skin disease if what you claim is valid.
Well one thing is sure. If the disease they are describing was successfully treated with hyssop it was not leprosy.
Randy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by Fred Williams, posted 08-21-2002 7:15 PM Fred Williams has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by derwood, posted 08-22-2002 12:00 PM Randy has replied

  
derwood
Member (Idle past 1876 days)
Posts: 1457
Joined: 12-27-2001


Message 38 of 56 (15923)
08-22-2002 11:53 AM
Reply to: Message 33 by Fred Williams
08-21-2002 7:15 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Fred Williams:
But the real issue is whether or not the Isrealites had advanced knowledge of microbes.
I am not saying Isrealites had advanced knowledge of microbes. This is Scott Page’s strawman. I am saying the Bible’s treatment of leprosy is yet another example where the Bible provides knowledge not available to man at the time. I’m sure the Isrealites had no idea why God commanded them to take certain actions regarding leprosy.
Here is what your saterical website has on it, empohasis mine:
************************************
Bacteria
Some time after I wrote these web pages, a Bible skeptic unwittingly showed me yet another example of advanced scientific/medical knowledge in the Bible. He posted a message on a discussion board that ridiculed some verses in Leviticus 13 and 14 that mention leprosy on walls and on garments. He felt this was silly and an error since leprosy is a human disease. What this skeptic was unaware of is the fact that leprosy is a bacteria, a living organism, that certainly can live on walls and garments! How often and how sweet it is when we see skeptic's attempts to denigrate God and the Bible turned around such that they end up glorifying God!
****************************************************
I challenge the mentally stable to explain, exactly, how it can be that I am making a 'strawman argument' when I say that you claim that the ancient Hebrews knew about microbes.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by Fred Williams, posted 08-21-2002 7:15 PM Fred Williams has not replied

  
derwood
Member (Idle past 1876 days)
Posts: 1457
Joined: 12-27-2001


Message 39 of 56 (15925)
08-22-2002 12:00 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by Randy
08-21-2002 10:11 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Randy:
Well one thing is sure. If the disease they are describing was successfully treated with hyssop it was not leprosy.
Randy
Indeed.
Here:
http://www.kobashi.to/...hyssop_kb001108/Hyssop_kb001108.htm
************************************
Latin name: Hyssopus officinalis L.
Family name Labiatae (Lamiaceae)
Oil from leaves and flowers
Obtained by steam distilled
Origin English - direct from the grower.
We bought all he grew this year.
Density this Batch: 0.912915
Aroma: This is a Truly Beautiful and Penetrating Oil -Clean, Sweet, Herby and more.
Color: very light straw
Hyssop Oil
File: C:\HPCHEM\1\DATA\KBOILNEW\NEWCOL~1\011031\0701007.D
Operator: Ira, & Scott Kobashi Essential Oils
Date Acquired: 4 Nov 2000 00:57
Method File: KBOILLOW
Sample Name: Hyssop kb001108 England 7/2000
threshold=15, area cutoff=0
GC 5890 system and auto sampler
Oil solution: 50uls of oil in 2ml pentane (acetone to clear if necessary)
Injection volume: 1m l, splitless
Column type: zTx5 reztec, 59.23m, 0.22mmID, 0.25um film thickness
Carrier gas: Helium
Flow rate: 1ml/min, 25.9cm/sec
Pressure: 186 KPa
Injector temp: oil dependant, this oil 250C
Detector temp: 280 C
Ms ( Mass Spectrum) System: Hp Ms5972 quadrapole detector
Hyssop Oil analysed in conjunction with Hp Chemstation , Wiley 275Library,Own retention library developed over many years of testing Kobashi Essential Oils, standards chemicals, and own distillations. Chemical cross analysed with Indentification of Essential Oil Components by Gas Chromatograpy/Mass Spectroscopy by Robert P Adams. Individual Ion patterns of chemicals have been confirmed through wiley 275L.
RT
Area%
Library/ID
Wiley
Ref#
CAS#
Quality match
10.66
0.25
.alpha.-Thujene
25175
002867-05-2
91
10.99
0.72
.alpha.-pinene
25199
000080-56-8
97
11.59
0.09
Camphene
25359
000079-92-5
97
11.64
0.12
Camphene
25162
000079-92-5
94
12.79
14.26
sabinene + beta.Pinene
25224
000127-91-3
97
13.00
1.73
Myrcene
25355
000123-35-3
96
14.18
0.08
Terpinene.alpha.
25315
000099-86-5
98
14.86
5.74
para cymene (t), Limonene<1%,beta. Phellandrene
25109
000555-10-2
94
15.39
1.10
Ocimene, cis-.beta, (Z)
25324
027400-71-1
94
15.96
0.12
.gamma.-Terpinene
25353
000099-85-4
96
17.30
0.09
terpinolene
25330
000586-62-9
98
17.78
0.71
Linalool
40052
000078-70-6
94
18.21
0.10
Thujone.alpha. (cis-)
37854
000546-80-5
96
18.70
0.09
Thujone.beta. (trans-)
37962
000471-15-8
96
19.02
0.06
Ocimene, trans-.beta. (E)
25381
027400-72-2
97
20.17
0.07
camphor
37827
000076-22-2
93
21.04
8.39
Pinocamphone
38410
000547-60-4
91
21.12
1.15
Pinocarvone
36044
016812-40-1
80
21.89
24.45
Isopinocamphone
38475
000473-62-1
91
22.44
0.75
myrtenol
37866
000515-00-4
96
22.51
0.20
myrtenal
35962
000564-94-3
96
25.47
0.02
Geranial (a citral)
37948
000141-27-5
94
30.29
0.23
.alpha.-Copaene
89527
003856-25-5
99
30.81
1.79
.beta.-Bourbonene
89548
005208-59-3
98
31.23
0.04
Elemene, beta
89661
000515-13-9
95
31.34
0.20
Methyl eugenol
62470
000093-15-2
98
31.83
0.76
.alpha.-Gurjunene
89465
000489-40-7
99
32.32
2.69
trans-Caryophyllene (beta)
89248
000087-44-5
99
32.39
1.84
trans-Caryophyllene (beta)
89248
000087-44-5
99
35.00
7.40
Germacrene-D
89658
023986-74-5
99
35.21
0.37
valencene
89600
046030-07-3
93
35.56
2.48
bicyclogermacrene
89615
100762-46-7
97
36.26
0.22
.beta.-sesquiphellandrene
89155
020307-83-9
90
36.36
0.27
.delta.-cadinene (armoise-Maroc)
89582
000483-76-1
99
37.60
4.78
elemol
108450
000639-99-6
91
39.03
0.56
Caryophyllene oxide
105971
001139-30-6
93
44.64
0.01
Nootkatone
103740
004674-50-4
58
Density 0.905 @20 C (BULK Bulgarian, KB9023)
Density (lit) SG; 0.9225 @20 C (c, sevtopolis)
SG; 0.935-0.956 @15 C (French, d)
SG; 0.957 @20/4 C (USSR, d)
Refractive index (lit) 1.4780 (c, sevtopolis)
1.478-1.490 (French, d)
Optical rotation -15 to —18 (French, d)
TO USE: 4-8 drops in vaporizer
or in burner on water. 3-5 drops in bath.
~1 drop in 10ml (2tspn) or < 1% in carrier oil,
moisturiser, shampoo, etc.
CAUTION: Do not take internally
or apply undiluted to the skin.
KEEP AWAY FROM CHILDREN AND EYES.
Usages: good for a sluggish constitution, mind clearing., ingredient of Chartreuse liqueur. Interesting reading in Gunther The Essential Oils Volume III pages 436-437, Aromatherapy An A-Z by Patricia Davis, The Practice of Aromatherapy by Dr Jean Valnet,
Kobashi Essential Oils 2 Fore Street Ide devon EX2 9RQ UK Kobashi Aromatherapy Products, Best Essential Oil, Vegetable & Nut Oils hyssop@kobashi.com
Used safely this is a beautiful Oil.
*******Health & Safety******* Precautions in case of over exposure.
This information is for manufacturers use: buying of large quantities to bottle and sell on.
* Ingestion: Do not induce vomiting, drink at least 1 pint of water.Seek urgent medical advice.
* Inhalation: Remove casualty to fresh air,keep respiratory passages free and seek medical advice immediately. Harmful: May cause lung damage if swallowed. If swallowed do don’t induce vomiting: seek medical advice immediately and show container or label.
* Eye contact: Irrigate with clean water for at least 15 minutes. Seek medical advice if stinging persist.
* Skin Contact:Remove contaminated clothing and wash with soap and water.
* Storage:Tightly sealed, well filled containers in a cool dark place. Keep away from sources of ignition.
*Flammable: Flash point 52 degrees C In case of fire use only dry powder or foam-never use water.
*Spillage: Eliminate all sources of ignition. No smoking. (e.g. propietary oil drying granules or sand, NOT sawdust or other flammable materials) and transfer to an approved waste disposal container, observing national legislation. Wash area clean with water and detergent.
References Checked by Dr. Kevin Brigden;
Neurotoxic (g) Abortive in over use (f)
AVOID — during pregnancy / by epileptics / children under 2 (g) / elderly (f) / high blood pressure (m)
A mild toxin, use with caution (k) Should not be taken orally, may cause convulsions (g)
Hyssopus officinalis pinocamphone and isopinocamphone account for its toxicity (g)
(a) Brian Lawrence Essential oils books (1976-94) yes
(b) Leonard Price folder yes
(c) Oil folder yes
(d) Gunther The Essential Oils Volumes I-VI (Volume III pages 436-437 yes
(e) Journals (from XL list) yes, none
(f) Aromatherapy for health profs, Shirley & Len Price. yes
(g) Essential Oil Safety,a Guide for Health Care Professionals R. Tisserand, T. Balacs yes
(h) The chemistry of essential oils yes
(i) Health and safety info (IFRA) yes,none
(k) The Encyclopaedia of Essential oils(Julia Lawless) yes
(l) health and safety folder yes, none
(m) The aromatherapy practitioner, reference manual,Sylla Sheppard-Hanger. Vol. 1 yes
(n) A safety guide on the use of essential oils,by, the international school of aromatherapy yes
(o) BIDS essential oil search doc yes
(p) Perfume & Flavour yes
*******************************************************
I see nothing about "antifungal" (which wouldn't have anything to do with leprosey) or "antimicrobial".
Any reliable evidence for your claims, Williams?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by Randy, posted 08-21-2002 10:11 PM Randy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by Randy, posted 08-22-2002 1:25 PM derwood has replied

  
derwood
Member (Idle past 1876 days)
Posts: 1457
Joined: 12-27-2001


Message 40 of 56 (15926)
08-22-2002 12:04 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by Randy
08-21-2002 10:04 PM


Originally posted by Randy:
What I said was told to me by dermatologists including one who has practiced in Africa and has direct experience dealing with and treating leprosy. You can’t contract it from walls period. Below is what the Meck Manual says about it.
Leprosy - Infections - Merck Manuals Consumer Version
Isolation, however, is unnecessary. Leprosy is contagious only in the untreated lepromatous form, and even then it isn't easily transmitted to others. Furthermore, most people are naturally immune to leprosy, and only those in a household with an infected person for an extended time are at risk of developing an infection. Doctors and nurses who treat people with leprosy do not appear to be at increased risk.
Hmmm.... Must be we all chug gallons of hyssop oil and just, by golly, don't know it...
Hey - didn't they also used to burn witches? I mean, afterall, witchism is catchy....

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by Randy, posted 08-21-2002 10:04 PM Randy has not replied

  
derwood
Member (Idle past 1876 days)
Posts: 1457
Joined: 12-27-2001


Message 41 of 56 (15927)
08-22-2002 12:09 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by Fred Williams
08-21-2002 7:57 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Fred Williams:
Impossible? If the bacteria can live for 3 weeks or more, it is certainly possible. Unlikely? Perhaps. Question: If you were forced to live with a leper, would you regularly wash yourself, your clothes, and anything in your room you think he might have rubbed up against? Case closed.
That proves what, exactly? I would burn my clothes if I thought I might have touched a fundamentalist creationist. Doesn't mean 'hyssop oil' can cure me of fundaMENTALism.
quote:
(BTW, there are also symbolic reasons for cleaning the walls that have to do with sin and atonement, but no need to get into that Bible study here).
Ah - the REAL reason... Funny how those bizarre extrapolations have a simple enough genesis.
quote:
It is? You must have missed the part where Hyssop oil has been shown to contain 50% antifungal and antibacterial agents.
Above is a chemical analysis of hyssop oil. Maybe you would be so kind as to point out the antifungal and antimicrobial agents.
Should be easy, since you claim 50% of its contents have these properties.
quote:
quote:
BTW which of Noah's children or daughters-in-law do YECs think was the leper? I don't see how else the disease could have survived the worldwide flood.
Who said the disease existed before the flood? Surely you are aware the vast majority of bacteria are beneficial ecological agents? You are also surely aware that mutation occurs? I submit that the Mycobacterium leprae bacillus is a bacteria that was once a useful ecological agent before the flood, and mutated after the flood into its nasty form we see today.
[/quote]
Sputter ough- EVIDENCE? ANY AT ALL???
quote:
I believe the post-flood environment resulted in an increase in harmful mutations. There is both Biblical and scientific evidence for this, but I obviously cannot be dogmatic on it. It is entirely reasonable and possible that a post-flood world would see a rapid increase in mutated bacteria, including undesirables such as Mycobacterium leprae.
Wow. It must be fun to be a creationist - just make stuff up as you see fit. Evidence? We don't need no evidence!
Pathetic....

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by Fred Williams, posted 08-21-2002 7:57 PM Fred Williams has not replied

  
derwood
Member (Idle past 1876 days)
Posts: 1457
Joined: 12-27-2001


Message 42 of 56 (15929)
08-22-2002 12:44 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by Fred Williams
08-21-2002 8:19 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Fred Williams:
As is common my young apprentice ran out of steam, so he returned to ole-reliable: blame it on ‘debate’ tactics. LOL!
I will be archiving this thread, too, for future use, as I am confident that I will, at some time, have to drag it out again to show your underhanded 'debate' tactics to a new audience.
No, I suspect you will be true to form and save if for some future misrepresentation.

Ah, projection from the master. I suppose that you can support this allegation, right? No, Williams, you are your own worst enemy in these 'debtes.'[quote]
Even your protg Robert, who I originally went round-and-round on the SNP noise issue, did not resort to making things up, like your allegation I claimed SNPs could be removed via a single taxon DNA sequence. That was some twisting of my words. You da man!
[quote] Fred, I have the exchanges. Shall I post them?
Yes, I shall:
***************************************
Regarding phylogenetic analyses:
R: "So, here is my question: How do you discern a difference due to fixed mutations from a difference due to accumulating SNP's in 2 respective populations?"
Fred: Via molecular analysis. Again, it makes no sense to compare noise (most of which likely represents deterioration) of one species to the noise (deterioration) of another to determine how much they differ. Note that the roughly 2.1 mil SNPs represents only about .07% of the genome.
********************************************
This was before Fred knew how phylogenetic analyses were done. I still don't think he has the foggiest idea now, but he later tried to cover his tracks. He is doing so now, as well, crying 'misrepresentation' and the like.
The fact remains, as is borne out by the following quotes as well, that Williams conflates(ed) fixed and polymorphic sites, claimed that polymorphisms were excluded form phylogenetic analysesd (via 'genetic analysis'), had it explained to him how phylogenetic analyses work, then claimed to have known all along that SNPs could not be removed. He even tried to claim that he told ME this.
This exchange:
Huxter:
"This of course ignores the fact that many synapomorphic changes are actually relatively large-scale insertions/deletions. "
Robert: Fred, do you agree with this statement? I have to say it is likely considering what has been debated so far.
Fred: It is true that insertions/deletions appear to play a role in gene activation/deactivation (they appear to be "non-random" events). But can you tell me what Huxter's point is? This blurb makes no sense in the context of my debate with Robert. So what if some synapomorphism can be attributed to insertions/deletions. Maybe he is implying that this type of mutation would cloud species comparisons. I would agree with him, but I think it would be a neglible impact."
tells me that you are clueless as far as what molecular phylogentics takes into account. This all stemmed from your ignorant claims about SNPs being removed from such analyses. Indels can, in fact, be very strong indicators of descent.
Do you deny this?
And I don't mean after-the-fact - you INSISTED that this was the case for some time. That you might now know differently is immaterial.
There was more:
sumac wrote:
*********************************
. Fred's attempts to clarify his previous statement resulted in both of his feet becoming firmly lodged in his mouth (How exactly do scientists use "molecular analysis" to discern the relative contributions of SNPs and fixed mutations to differences between two sequences?). I showed how SNPs could not be accounted for in most sequence comparisons so that the reported differences between humans and chimps must include both fixed and unfixed differences (which has been one of huxter's points all along). Fred fooled no one, especially Robert, when he changed his position to avoid admitting his mistake.
6. Fred reasserted that it is invalid to compare SNPs across species. I showed Fred a couple of articles that demonstrate how comparing SNPs across species is not only valid, but useful in understanding how evolution proceeds. Fred called this a Red Herring.
7. Fred asserted that, even though he has changed his position, it doesn't matter because the contribution of SNPs to the total difference is insignificant. I pointed out that the contribution of SNPs could be as high as 2-3% of the total difference (or even higher if my assumptions were off). The fixed difference between species is millions of nucleotides less than the reported difference.
8. Fred declares victory, but still doesn't know when to quit.
**************************************************
sumac again:
Fred: I succeeded in proving my point that SNPs have nothing to do with inter-species comparisons. As noise, they can only cloud the comparisons. Fortunately (for both this debate and for our own health), this noise level is low enough as to inject no tangible effect on past inter-species comparisons.
You succeeded in proving nothing. As huxter and I have repeatedly pointed out, SNPs are an integral part of interspecies comparisons because most of the time you can't recognize them for what they are and account for them. In addition (here's that Red Herring again), when you can account for them, you can include them in your analysis to gain even more information about the sequences you are comparing.
****************************************************
As has become Williams' calling card, he has resorted to sinning - bearing false witness - in a sad attempt to prop up his fragile ego and his putrid beliefs.
If you can't back up your 'scientific' claims, Williams, DON'T MAKE ANY.
Backpeddaling, distorting, sinning, and so forth do not erase your old claims. It just demonstrates that you didn't know what you were talking about.
These are basially tangents, but I ran across them looking for Fred's SNP gaffe. They supply some insight into the pseudocertain creationist mindset...
**********************************
Fred:
"First, a clarification you asked for. My claim of 120 million base pairs assumes they are fixed.Whatever the genome base pair difference turns out to be, be it 120 mil, 30 mil, 60 mil, 10 mil,this difference must represent the difference between fixed locus.[sic] Inclusion of SNPs would distort the data. When informed evolutionists give estimates between chimp & man, they are referring to fixed differences. Trust me! "
"The reason I know they are talking about fixed mutations is because I know that they are smart. If they are comparing SNPs between apes and humans, then they are simply quacks."
=====
R: "Do you think the 120 million mutations separating humans from chimps are fixed in their respective populations?"
Fred:Yes, I've been saying this all along. ...
****************************************************
Hmmm...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by Fred Williams, posted 08-21-2002 8:19 PM Fred Williams has not replied

  
Randy
Member (Idle past 6247 days)
Posts: 420
From: Cincinnati OH USA
Joined: 07-19-2002


Message 43 of 56 (15933)
08-22-2002 1:25 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by derwood
08-22-2002 12:00 PM


Quote from SLPx
quote:
I see nothing about "antifungal" (which wouldn't have anything to do with leprosey) or "antimicrobial".
Actually, some of the terpenes particularly germacrene-D and its relatives, have some antibacterial and antifungal efficacy. Interestingly, these compounds while completely worthless for treating leprosy may have some effect on diseases such as tinea corpus and others which might be easily be confused with leprosy. Perhaps mistaken identity is why hyssop was incorrectly thought to be efficacious for treating leprosy. The varius forms of tinea can be tricky to diagnose without the use of KOH and a microscope and there are several other skin diseases which can be confused with leprosy.
Mycobacterium leprea is a thick walled bacteria that is inside cells well down in the dermis attacking the nerves and effective topical treatment is not possible. I suspect if you tried to take enough hyssop oil to treat it orally you wouldn’t have to worry about the leprosy because you would die from the hyssop and it wouldn't work anyway.
Some fundamentalist websites that tout the antibacterial efficacy of hyssop say it contains 50% Carvacrol (methyl-5-(1-methylethyl)phenol) but I don’t see that at in the analysis you linked.
The main use of hyssop these days is primariliy in new age aroma therapy applications. The terpenes in hyssop are quite volatile and I suppose their medicinal odor has some placebo effects.
Randy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by derwood, posted 08-22-2002 12:00 PM derwood has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by derwood, posted 08-22-2002 2:52 PM Randy has replied

  
derwood
Member (Idle past 1876 days)
Posts: 1457
Joined: 12-27-2001


Message 44 of 56 (15935)
08-22-2002 2:52 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by Randy
08-22-2002 1:25 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Randy:
Quote from SLPx
quote:
I see nothing about "antifungal" (which wouldn't have anything to do with leprosey) or "antimicrobial".
Actually, some of the terpenes particularly germacrene-D and its relatives, have some antibacterial and antifungal efficacy...
I suspected that some of the compounds indicated might have such properties, however, I don't see them adding up to 50%.
Sounds like the usual extrapolation and embellishment from the cretin crowd...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by Randy, posted 08-22-2002 1:25 PM Randy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by Randy, posted 08-22-2002 6:36 PM derwood has replied

  
Randy
Member (Idle past 6247 days)
Posts: 420
From: Cincinnati OH USA
Joined: 07-19-2002


Message 45 of 56 (15946)
08-22-2002 6:36 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by derwood
08-22-2002 2:52 PM


I just read the Leviticus 13 and 14. It is clear to me that the diseases being described cannot all be leprosy and I don't think that any of them actually are leprosy. I see symptoms that could be the result of fungal infections, psoriasis or pustular psoriasis, vitiligo, exema, impetigo, boils and maybe diabetic or other ulcers, possibly sebborheic dermatitis, maybe even squamous cell carcinoma, but not leprosy. The skin may lighten in spots early on with leprosy, but the hair does not turn white and eventually the skin will be quite dark in patches in lepromatus leprosy. I have seen pictures of advanced lepromatous leprosy where the hair is still dark and patches of skin are very dark. In this stage the disease may be hard to distinguish from discoid lupus erythematosus without modern diagnostic techniques. There are some other Bible versus that refer to the skin and even hair of lepers being white or white as snow. This is not leprosy as we know it today.
I think that L 14:34-37 describing a plague of leprosy on a house are particularly revealing. While micobacterium leprae may live for three days on the walls of a house for 3 days as Fred says I doubt if it will produce "hollow streaks greenish or reddish". Sounds more like mildew than leprosy.
It is fortunate for them that the skin diseases weren't leprosy as the treatments described and the methods for deciding if a patient was clean or not are totally worthless for leprosy.
Randy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by derwood, posted 08-22-2002 2:52 PM derwood has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by derwood, posted 08-22-2002 8:27 PM Randy has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024