Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 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 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

  
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

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


Message 46 of 56 (15949)
08-22-2002 8:27 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by Randy
08-22-2002 6:36 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Randy:
...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
I hadn't read it for about 3 years now. But now that you mention it (you have a better grasp of the issue than I) it does seem absurd to think that washing tapestries and wiping the hearth with oil would be an efficient treatment for ANYTHING, much less leprosy.
But it is amazing - the Israelites had apparently been given from On High the original formula for Lysol.
Surely, that cannot be a coincidence....

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by Randy, posted 08-22-2002 6:36 PM Randy has not replied

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


Message 47 of 56 (16498)
09-03-2002 12:42 PM


keeping it alive...

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


Message 48 of 56 (17191)
09-11-2002 5:51 PM


Freddie?

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by Fred Williams, posted 09-11-2002 7:43 PM derwood has not replied

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


Message 52 of 56 (17541)
09-16-2002 1:57 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by Fred Williams
09-12-2002 8:29 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Fred Williams:
Well stated. It boils down to subjective opinion whether or not a thread is exhausted. In my opinion this thread is exhausted.
Funny how that always seems to happen when the creationist has had his hat handed to him... Lets just hope that Williams doesn't spout his BS about polymorphisms in phylogenetic analyses again...
quote:
Here is a summary from my POV:
1) Scott claimed my leprosy bit at my bibleevidences.com site was bogus.
2) I supported my claim with citations showing that leprosy can survive outside of the body for three weeks or more.
How does that support your claim that the ancient Hebrews knew about microbes?
quote:
It further puts into favorable light the associated Biblical requirements such as burning garments.
3) Scott then turned to a strawman argument by incorrectly claiming I said the Hebrews were educated in microbiology.
And that is a strawman and a misrepresentation (whats new?). I never said such a thing at all. According to YOU, the ancient hebrews knew about microbes. Those are YOUR words. You failed to support THAT claim. It should come as no surprise that you are now trying to shift the burdena nd backtrack.
I wonder - can you find some citations indicating that leprosy really can be cured by killing pigeons, as described in the bible?
quote:
4) John, then later Randy if I recall, point out that the word leprosy in the Bible may cover a variety of diseases. This may be so, it may not. Regardless, it does not impact my original argument.
No, but you still have yet to support your orignal argument with anything relevant.
quote:
5) Randy protests that leprosy is not that contagious and requirements such as cleaning walls is not necessary. Perhaps, perhaps not. If #3 is valid and some other disease (or perhaps some other form of leprosy) is more contagious, it is very reasonable that walls also be cleaned. But again, this does not impact my original argument much if at all. The Biblical passage implies that leprosy can live on garments and walls, and we know that indeed it can.
Chapter and verse, please. You say "implies", I say wild, if not bizarre extrapolation...
quote:
Whether or not washing the walls is worthwhile is not that crucial to my core argument. Burning the garments certainly makes perfect sense, but even it is not crucial to my argument. They are merely icing on the cake.
Your 'core argument' is that the Hebes knew about microbes. Burning garments proves this how?
quote:
6) The thread moved to hyssop oil. Randy agrees it has some anti-bacterial agents, but claims it is a worthless remedy against leprosy. Perhaps, but perhaps not, particularly if claim #3 above is valid. Randy acknowledges hyssop would be effective against ailments that could easily be confused with leprosy. Moreover, in reading the Bible passage one gets the impression that in the case of leprosy hyssop is part of the ceremonial cleaning, and that shaving and washing is the medical prescription. However, in Numbers 19:18 hyssop oil is clearly part of the medical prescription, in the cleaning of vessels and people who come into contact with dead corpses.
You claimed that 50% of what is in hyssop oil is antibacterial.
Prove it or retract it.
quote:
What else is there to add? Nothing, really, other than to add that there is mounting evidence that non-random mutations occur.
Thats it, Williams. make a joke out of one of your more enduring blunders and falsehoods.
Best you can do.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by Fred Williams, posted 09-12-2002 8:29 PM Fred Williams has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by John, posted 10-27-2002 9:56 PM derwood has not replied

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


Message 53 of 56 (18887)
10-02-2002 5:23 PM


bump

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


Message 56 of 56 (21198)
10-31-2002 1:43 PM


Still waiting for the documentation indicating that oil of hyssop is "50% antibacterial".....

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024