|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Coffee House Musings on Creationist Topic Proposals | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 104 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
In other words, you can't provide any evidence to support your claim. Golly gee, what a surprise!!
You don't fool me, Clownman ... like most Darwinoids, you're a bs-artist and a con-man.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 104 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
The bottom line is, all you've got to offer is your UCD fantasy. How pathetic. If I were you, I'd be embarrassed.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 104 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
Whereabouts in the article you cited does it describe the treatment of a disease being improved or created by the theory of UCD?
If the article doesn't contain any such description, it's irrelevant to the discussion on this thread ... but something tells me that you don't even understand that discussion, so I shouldn't be surprised by you providing an irrelevant article.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 104 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined:
|
ringo writes:
I accept the "relatedness of all species" in the sense that all species share certain genetic similarities ... which doesn't require accepting UCD. I can't believe that you don't understand: "relatedness of all species" is exactly the same as common descent. If you concede that all species are related, then you HAVE to accept common descent. Your problem as a brainwashed Darwinoid is that you can't accept relatedness due to genetic similarities without accepting UCD as well. In other words, like all the Darwinoids, you're intellectually incapable of separating the facts (ie, the genetic similarities) the from a theory based on those facts (ie, UCD). That's why you (and Darwinoids in general) mistakenly believe the theory UCD is practically useful to medical science, when the truth is it's only the facts of genetic similarity that are practically useful to medical science.
Dredge writes:
Secondly, UCD is merely a theory - you can't prove that it's "reality".ringo writes:
... which means my statement is true: No one can prove that UCD is a fact.
Science doesn't attempt to "prove" anything.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 104 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
Phat writes:
If you want to contribute to the discussion, please cite one example of how the theory of UCD has created or improved the treatment of a disease. the discipline of understanding another mans theory is the exact process through which vaccines,Chemotherapy treatments, even over the counter cough medicines were developed. Do you even understand what the theory of UCD is?
You are a good Catholic, right? Explain any advances in the field of medicine among the clergy and laymen of the RCC that successfully moved forward in our (human) "fight" against childhood diseases or cancer treatments that willfully avoided the mainstream consensus at oh I dunno...UCLA or the Mayo clinic?
WTF?????? Bizarre.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 104 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
Dredge writes:
I think what you're trying to say is, scientists don't need the theory of UCD to know how and why vaccines work.Taq writes:
They used UCD? Really? In that case, whereabouts in the article you cited does a scientist say they "used UCD to figure out how vaccines work"?
Scientists used UCD to figure out how vaccines work, as I have already shown you. It doesn't matter if you think they needed it or not. They used UCD. COVID-19 vaccines: modes of immune activation and future challenges | Nature Reviews Immunology
Where does the article even mention UCD? NONE of the articles you've cited so far describe the actual creation of or improvement in a treatment for disease due to the theory of UCD.The best you've managed to do is cite a theoretical approach to research, for which there is no evidence that it's even worth pursuing. It appears you're flogging a dead horse, but you're too proud and arrogant to admit it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 104 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
Phat writes:
Big deal. The Pope's opinion on evolution means nothing to me. He's merely parroting the consensus of the Darwinist cult that rules the scientific community ... which also means nothing to me. After all, even Pope Francis defended the legitimacy of biological evolution Besides, I accept that life on earth has experienced great changes over vast periods of time, so in that sense I accept "evolution".
BTW what do you think of Francis?
The sooner he's replaced the better. The only good thing I've heard from him is when he spoke about the reality of demons and Satan ... how ironic!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 104 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
Taq writes:
So says Taq the Darwinoid con-man ... unfortunately for your lies, NONE of the scientists mentioned in the article said anything about our knowledge of toll-like receptors coming from UCD.
They used knowledge of toll-like receptors to figure out how vaccines work, and our knowledge of toll-like receptors came from UCD.I have cited all of the relevant articles multiple times now.
So says Taq the Darwinoid con-man ... unfortunately for your lies,NONE of the articles or papers you cited even mention UCD.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 104 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
Dredge writes:
In other words, you can't answer my question:Why do you need to believe that all life shares a common ancestor to examine and compare the DNA of humans and other animals? ringoat writes:
I'm pretty sure you didn't answer that question ... all you did was make an assertion (re the use of cow and pig insulin in humans) ... no explanation was provided.
I'm pretty sure I did answer that question the first time you asked it, quite a long time ago. It isn't a question of "need".
Here you go again ... making an assertion with no explanation in sight. The common ancestor is a fact. Nested hierarchies based on gross anatomy indicated common descent very long ago - and that fact was confirmed more recently by DNA. We don't "need" it to be a fact but it is. We can't really do anything in biology without acknowleging the fact . Explain why "We can't really do anything in biology without acknowleging the fact" of UCD. Explain why cow and pig insulin would not have been used in humans without the "fact" of UCD.
- the evidence for that is the fact that deniers, like creationists, don't do anything in biology.
Hilarious. Many biologists are creationists. What you mean is, no creationists are evolutionary biologists, who are the bullshit-artists, con-men and charlatans of the scientific community.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 104 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
Dredge writes:
which improvement in the treatment of which disease has the "fact" of UCD provided? And explain how.ringoat writes:
True, but as usual, you didn't answer my question.
Cow and pig insulin improved the treatment of diabetes. We only thought of it because cows and pigs are related to us - i.e. we share a common ancestor with cows and pigs.
What a pity you can't cite even one scientific paper that says "We only thought of it because ... we share a common ancestor with cows and pigs." Sadly, your baseless assertions are typical of the deceitful bullshit habitually excreted by Darwinoids.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 104 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
ringoat writes:
Please cite a scientific paper that states that the use of cow and pig insulin in humans would have been impossible without the theory of UCD.
You don't even understand that because we are related to cows and pigs, we have a common ancestor. Being related MEANS we have a common ancestor. YOU explain why no creationist, no common-descent denier, has ever produced a useful idea about biology.
Please cite a scientific paper that states that no creationist or no common-descent denier has ever produced a useful idea about biology.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 104 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
Phat writes:
The enemies of God's one, true Church don't know what they're talking about.
Some say that the Roman Catholic Church itself is a giant and ongoing cult. Our old member, Faith, used to attack them.
It's sad to see deceived people attacking God's Church. They know not what they do. Saul of Tarsus thought he was doing God's will by attacking the Church.
Perhaps you could clarify how this "cult of Darwinoids" hijacked science.
"Satan, the deceiver of the whole world—he was thrown down to the earth, and his angels were thrown down with him."
Next, you could explain how the entire RCC selection process for a new Pope got hijacked by the evil one. After all, Jesus even said to Peter that the gates of hell would never prevail against His church.
A Pope parroting a story about evolution doesn't mean the gates of hell have prevailed against the Catholic Church. If a Pope said the moon is made of cheese, it doesn't mean the gates of hell have prevailed against the Catholic Church.
It might help me if you shared some of the literature and source of thinking that you espouse.
Why would that help you? "Take me to your leader."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 104 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
Nice try, con-man, but no cigar. The comments you highlighted in your quote were made by the author of the article, NOT by any of the scientists involved in the work on toll-like receptors described in the article.
NONE of the scientists mentioned in the article said anything about UCD.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 104 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
Dredge writes:
Please cite a scientific paper that states that the use of cow and pig insulin in humans would have been impossible without the theory of UCD.ringoat writes:
In other words, you can cite the grand total of ZERO scientific papers that support your claim ... so I can safely conclude that you're a typical Darwinoid - ie, a bs-artist, a con-man and a charlatan.
I already answered that. Dredge writes:
Please cite a scientific paper that states that no creationist or no common-descent denier has ever produced a useful idea about biology.ringoat writes:
No, Einstein, that's not how it works ... you made the claim, so the onus is on you to back it up with some scientific evidence. The onus is on you to cite any scientific paper in which any creationist or any science-denier has ever produced any useful idea about biology. But you won't, bcoz you can't, which makes you a typical Darwinoid - ie, a bs-artist, a con-man and a charlatan.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 104 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined:
|
Phat writes:
Who is Ken Ham? Does he sell pork products? Thus, im wondering if your sources originated through the church or if you simply favor Ken Ham and the ID proponents withot giving much of a thought about their source of information/wisdom. Speaking of "sources", I quite like pork chops with apple source.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024