One Political Plaza - Home of politics
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Main
A question for creationist and intelligent designer proponents.
Page <<first <prev 3 of 6 next> last>>
Nov 27, 2015 11:06:08   #
mark13 Loc: usa
 
1115 un-science
Dealing with the science dope = such people believe that in the beginning was nothing and suddenly a big bang occurred and from that explosive nothing bang all matter and energy evolved... what a stupidly unscientific opinion; but, a perfect statement of the atheist dolts position... meanwhile the self-styled science community keeps whining about not getting any respect from society at large... look at what they say - because the so-called scientific community clings to their stupid big bang evolution theory they have root credibility problems; which, they now compound with their 'phony man caused' ‘’hate America to destruction’ global climate change hoax.
Hello ! self-styled science Flat earthers ! You roped in the Pope but I’m not falling for it.
the climate is always changing in response to actual planet and solar changes... there are natural warming and cooling planet climate cycles and geological events :
the 175,000 year northern tundra thawing cycle,
the 1100 - 1500 year green land cycle,
the Swiss ice man cycles,
the all planets warming 1 degree since 1960’s cycle,
the changing sea current cycles,
[during the last great warming, Europe was 1 degree warmer than it is today [1960's temps],
more water entering earth atmosphere from space cycles,
the sun flare cycles,
the earth magnetic field cycles,
the accelerating earth volcanic activity cycles... and on and on
…the above are all actual scientific events that have actual scientific histories, as opposed to the loony toon, ‘totally unscientific’ big bang theory and its’ attendant suto-science baggage’… there is absolutely NO form of Actual Science that supports the obnoxiously stupid idea that from nothing everything came spontaneously.
The above information does not dispute actual science it just establishes the obvious about the loony toon suto science being sold as if it were substantial. I understand, the stupid theory ‘from nothing came everything’ is the only crutch the self styled atheists deviants have to cling to… but, they keep bringing it up and I can’t resist kicking it out from under them.
Note about the list of naturally occurring events, above, we should be concerned about these goings on because they are all major Historic planet influencers in their own right, and planet/solar history says ‘they have never in all of history happened at the same moment’ BEFORE… as they are doing now = all happening at the same moment in global history – this unique event does not bode well and cannot be good… should be addressed instead of ‘the phony hate America to destruction man caused climate change fraud’ being advanced by the obsolete governing feudal police state operations controlling the world .
Enjoy the ACTUAL coming NATURAL global/solar planet changing events, Mark13

Reply
Nov 27, 2015 11:09:17   #
Gener
 
SamDawkins wrote:
http://rosarubicondior.blogspot.com/



FRIDAY, 27 NOVEMBER 2015

Does God Like Bats But Hate The Rest of Us?
The evolution of bat nucleic acid-sensing Toll-like receptors - Escalera-Zamudio - 2015 - Molecular Ecology - Wiley Online Library

Here is today's embarrassing question for creationists. Does your hypothetical intelligent designer favour bats and hate the rest of us?

The reason you need to answer this is because a paper published today shows that bats have a better immune system than other mammals. I'm assuming that creationists only believe in one intelligent designer and not millions of competing intelligent designers all closely guarding their designs and refusing to share.

So, if this supposed intelligent designer can design a better immune system for bats, why did it design a lesser one for the rest of us? Of course, this ignores considerations about why an immune system is needed at all and why a benevolent god would have designed parasites from which an immune system tries to protect us but that's a different issue. I have never managed to find a creationist with the honesty, integrity and courage to tackle the question of there parasites fit in a perfect world designed by a perfect and maximally benevolent designer so I doubt I'll get one now.

So, let's just concentrate on why this supposed designer gave bats a better immune system.

The paper was published in Molecular Ecology by an international team lead by Marina Escalera-Zamudio from the Department of Wildlife Diseases, Leibniz Institute for Zoo and Wildlife Research, Berlin, Germany. It shows that bats have a much more efficient system of Toll-like Receptors (TLRs). TLRs are considered to be the first-line defense against pathogens and recognise a wide range of pathogenic molecular signatures.

Bats exhibit traits unique amongst mammals, such as flight, and across different species they have an exceptional breadth in diet, a result of their long-term adaptation to a wide variety of environments and ecological niches. These niches also have specific pathogen profiles which are likely to have shaped the evolution of the bat TLRs in an order-specific manner.

Marina Escalera-Zamudio
Regrettably, the paper published by John Wiley & Sons, Inc. is copyright protected and, although the abstract is available online, permission to reprint it is closely guarded. If I obtain this permission I will reprint it here. Meanwhile one can only hope for the day when all scientific research is freely available and accessible to all.

What this finding suggests is an answer to the problem of why bats seem to act as a reservoir species for some pathogens like rabies which can be transmitted by a bat bite but from which bats appear to be immune. Bats have also recently been implicated as a reservoir species for ebola.

So, from an intelligent design perspective, it's hard not to conclude that such an intelligent designer is not favouring bats by designing a superior immune system for them but deliberately withholding this new, improved design from other mammals, including its supposed favourite species, and what it created all the others for, humans.

Would any creationist like to deal with this question, or is it to be the usual avoidance of these difficult questions yet again whilst pretending the intelligent design notion is the best available explanation of the way things are?

Reference:
Escalera-Zamudio, M., Zepeda-Mendoza, M. L., Loza-Rubio, E., Rojas-Anaya, E., Méndez-Ojeda, M. L., Arias, C. F. and Greenwood, A. D. (2015), The evolution of bat nucleic acid-sensing Toll-like receptors. Mol Ecol, 24: 5899–5909. doi:10.1111/mec.13431
http://rosarubicondior.blogspot.com/ br br br b... (show quote)



This is an utterly stupid argument, and it is the perpetrator of this argument who should be embarrassed. Every living organism has advantages and disadvantages over other organisms. Each organism operates on the basis of their need to exist in the overall scheme of things, and all organisms play a role in the overall balance of nature. All are needed. Ocassionally a species is destroyed and nature has to find another way to balance itself. It always does. Without an intelligent principle this could NOT happen. That argument is indisputable and anyone who says other wise is either stupid or lying. In many cases it requires a species that is considered lower on the evolutionary scale to keep in balance a species considered higher on the evolutionary scales. If the source of food comes from a higher evolutionary species, how did the lower exist until the higher was created? As is the case of spiders with flies. And don't tell me they ate something else before flies were created. That is dishonest or at the very least highly speculative.

The science industry is controlled by the elite just as everything else is. What you learn in school is an intentional lie, and if you confront the professors they will not discuss such with you. Of course the professors are fooled as much as everyone else is.

Man is supposed to be highest on the evolutionary scale, and yet man is the only species that cannot live without houses, without heating and cooling, without cooked food, and has no protection against nature in general. Man is not generally eaten by other animals. We are a totally different creation. We also have a much weaker digestion system for digesting food. Something that should not be the case if we are highest on the evolutionary scale. Man also has a third and fourth chromosome that has been fused together, something that cannot happen by accident. It is proof that higher entities made us for their own purposes. We are a special creation, and we tend to create imbalance more than balance, which doesn't happen anywhere else in nature.

These people making these arguments ought to really think about what they are saying, because they are the ones that should be ashamed, no one else.

Reply
Nov 27, 2015 11:14:01   #
Artemis
 
SamDawkins wrote:
You are currently communicating with me thanks to science.


Science yes but not without the human brain who put it all together...no?

Reply
Nov 27, 2015 11:39:50   #
SamDawkins
 
mark13 wrote:
1115 un-science
Dealing with the science dope = such people believe that in the beginning was nothing and suddenly a big bang occurred and from that explosive nothing bang all matter and energy evolved... what a stupidly unscientific opinion; but, a perfect statement of the atheist dolts position... meanwhile the self-styled science community keeps whining about not getting any respect from society at large... look at what they say - because the so-called scientific community clings to their stupid big bang evolution theory they have root credibility problems; which, they now compound with their 'phony man caused' ‘’hate America to destruction’ global climate change hoax.
Hello ! self-styled science Flat earthers ! You roped in the Pope but I’m not falling for it.
the climate is always changing in response to actual planet and solar changes... there are natural warming and cooling planet climate cycles and geological events :
the 175,000 year northern tundra thawing cycle,
the 1100 - 1500 year green land cycle,
the Swiss ice man cycles,
the all planets warming 1 degree since 1960’s cycle,
the changing sea current cycles,
[during the last great warming, Europe was 1 degree warmer than it is today [1960's temps],
more water entering earth atmosphere from space cycles,
the sun flare cycles,
the earth magnetic field cycles,
the accelerating earth volcanic activity cycles... and on and on
…the above are all actual scientific events that have actual scientific histories, as opposed to the loony toon, ‘totally unscientific’ big bang theory and its’ attendant suto-science baggage’… there is absolutely NO form of Actual Science that supports the obnoxiously stupid idea that from nothing everything came spontaneously.
The above information does not dispute actual science it just establishes the obvious about the loony toon suto science being sold as if it were substantial. I understand, the stupid theory ‘from nothing came everything’ is the only crutch the self styled atheists deviants have to cling to… but, they keep bringing it up and I can’t resist kicking it out from under them.
Note about the list of naturally occurring events, above, we should be concerned about these goings on because they are all major Historic planet influencers in their own right, and planet/solar history says ‘they have never in all of history happened at the same moment’ BEFORE… as they are doing now = all happening at the same moment in global history – this unique event does not bode well and cannot be good… should be addressed instead of ‘the phony hate America to destruction man caused climate change fraud’ being advanced by the obsolete governing feudal police state operations controlling the world .
Enjoy the ACTUAL coming NATURAL global/solar planet changing events, Mark13
1115 un-science br Dealing with the science dope =... (show quote)



You sure touched on a lot of topics. None of which appear related to the topic of the article I posted.
It was interesting that in your summary paragraph you admit that climate change is real, and happening now. I think most rational people admit that climate change is real,and is a global issue ,not an "‘the phony hate America to destruction man caused climate change fraud’" that you claim it is.
Whether climate change is man made or part of some grand natural cycle is actually beside the point. Continuing to base our civilization on fossil fuel is stupid.Especially when viable renewable alternatives exist.

The Big Bang is backed up by irrefutable scientific theory. You assumption that at some point in time there was " nothing" has been proven to be inaccurate . http://www.impactnottingham.com/2013/10/dummies-guide-to-the-higgs-boson/

Reply
Nov 27, 2015 11:44:16   #
SamDawkins
 
Gener wrote:
This is an utterly stupid argument, and it is the perpetrator of this argument who should be embarrassed. Every living organism has advantages and disadvantages over other organisms. Each organism operates on the basis of their need to exist in the overall scheme of things, and all organisms play a role in the overall balance of nature. All are needed. Ocassionally a species is destroyed and nature has to find another way to balance itself. It always does. Without an intelligent principle this could NOT happen. That argument is indisputable and anyone who says other wise is either stupid or lying. In many cases it requires a species that is considered lower on the evolutionary scale to keep in balance a species considered higher on the evolutionary scales. If the source of food comes from a higher evolutionary species, how did the lower exist until the higher was created? As is the case of spiders with flies. And don't tell me they ate something else before flies were created. That is dishonest or at the very least highly speculative.

The science industry is controlled by the elite just as everything else is. What you learn in school is an intentional lie, and if you confront the professors they will not discuss such with you. Of course the professors are fooled as much as everyone else is.

Man is supposed to be highest on the evolutionary scale, and yet man is the only species that cannot live without houses, without heating and cooling, without cooked food, and has no protection against nature in general. Man is not generally eaten by other animals. We are a totally different creation. We also have a much weaker digestion system for digesting food. Something that should not be the case if we are highest on the evolutionary scale. Man also has a third and fourth chromosome that has been fused together, something that cannot happen by accident. It is proof that higher entities made us for their own purposes. We are a special creation, and we tend to create imbalance more than balance, which doesn't happen anywhere else in nature.

These people making these arguments ought to really think about what they are saying, because they are the ones that should be ashamed, no one else.
This is an utterly stupid argument, and it is the ... (show quote)




What makes you think that "Man is supposed to be highest on the evolutionary scale"?

Reply
Nov 27, 2015 11:54:33   #
SamDawkins
 
Artemis wrote:
Science yes but not without the human brain who put it all together...no?



Science is the obvious byproduct of human intelligence. For more on the topic of human intelligence.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/body/what-is-intelligence.html

Reply
Nov 27, 2015 12:26:43   #
Gener
 
SamDawkins wrote:
What makes you think that "Man is supposed to be highest on the evolutionary scale"?


That's what the evolutionists say. What is your point?

Reply
Check out topic: NATO chief allies with gays
Nov 27, 2015 12:30:22   #
Gener
 
SamDawkins wrote:
You sure touched on a lot of topics. None of which appear related to the topic of the article I posted.
It was interesting that in your summary paragraph you admit that climate change is real, and happening now. I think most rational people admit that climate change is real,and is a global issue ,not an "‘the phony hate America to destruction man caused climate change fraud’" that you claim it is.
Whether climate change is man made or part of some grand natural cycle is actually beside the point. Continuing to base our civilization on fossil fuel is stupid.Especially when viable renewable alternatives exist.

The Big Bang is backed up by irrefutable scientific theory. You assumption that at some point in time there was " nothing" has been proven to be inaccurate . http://www.impactnottingham.com/2013/10/dummies-guide-to-the-higgs-boson/
You sure touched on a lot of topics. None of which... (show quote)



The big bang is backed up also Biblically if you understand the Hebrew codes. But that has nothing to do with anything. It doesn't change any argument in any way. Matter cannot CANNOT just explode without a cause. Period. There is no legitimate argument against this. You people that hold these kinds of views should be ashamed of yourselves. You twist facts to fit your own purposes, and what is worse is you believe your own lies. Start being honest and think about things.

Reply
Nov 27, 2015 12:36:40   #
SamDawkins
 
Gener wrote:
That's what the evolutionists say. What is your point?


Which evolutionist?


We are just evolved. There is nothing about our intelligence or consciousness that will ensure our survival. If that is the goal of evolution then we are certainly not the most evolved.

Reply
Nov 27, 2015 12:38:29   #
AuntiE Loc: 45th Least Free State
 
SamDawkins wrote:
Which evolutionist?


We are just evolved. There is nothing about our intelligence or consciousness that will ensure our survival. If that is the goal of evolution then we are certainly not the most evolved.


You certainly are not. Being a man precludes the word "evolved"! :!: :mrgreen: :roll: 8-) :twisted:

Reply
Nov 27, 2015 12:50:20   #
Gener
 
SamDawkins wrote:
Which evolutionist?


We are just evolved. There is nothing about our intelligence or consciousness that will ensure our survival. If that is the goal of evolution then we are certainly not the most evolved.


This is meaningless. It has nothing to do with anything. What is your point? There is much, and I mean VERY MUCH that you do not understand, but that is true of all arrogant scientists who think they know something we do not know. They are arrogant beyond belief. And they hide any true science that does not go along with their theories because they have a hidden agenda. But of course you will never believe that, because it doesn't fit in with your underlying assumptions about the way the world works, so you make superficial arguments that show a lack of knowledge. But what else is new?

Reply
Nov 27, 2015 13:03:21   #
VladimirPee
 
Rabies in humans is rare in the United States. There are usually only one or two human cases per year. But the most common source of human rabies in the United States is from bats. For example, among the 19 naturally acquired cases of rabies in humans in the United States from 1997-2006, 17 were associated with bats. Among these, 14 patients had known encounters with bats. Four people awoke because a bat landed on them and one person awoke because a bat bit him. In these cases, the bat was inside the home.

One person was reportedly bitten by a bat from outdoors while he was exiting from his residence. Six people had a history of handling a bat while removing it from their home. One person was bitten by a bat while releasing it outdoors after finding it on the floor inside a building. One person picked up and tried to care for a sick bat found on the ground outdoors. Three men ages 20, 29 and 64 had no reported encounters with bats but died of bat-associated rabies viruses.

Why didn’t these people get the rabies vaccine?

In some cases, persons who died of rabies knew they were bitten by a bat. They didn t go to a doctor, maybe because they didn t know that bats can have rabies and transmit it through a bite.

In other cases, it s possible that young children may not fully awaken due to the presence of a bat (or its bite) or may not report a bite to their parents. For example, one 4-year-old patient, who died of rabies, was still sleeping when her caregivers checked on her because they heard strange noises. They found a bat on the floor of her bedroom. She was most likely bitten and did not fully awaken. This patient developed tingling and itching on her neck at what was probably the site of a bat bite as she became sick with rabies a few weeks later.

In another case, a 10-year-old child removed a bat from his bedroom without adult supervision and several months later developed tingling and itching on his arm and one side of his head as he became sick with rabies.

Rabies is a fatal disease. Each year, tens of thousands of people are successfully protected from developing rabies through vaccination after being bitten by an animal like a bat that may have rabies. There are usually only one or two human rabies cases each year in the United States, and the most common way for people to get rabies in the United States is through contact with a bat.

Those people didn t recognize the risk of rabies from the bite of a wild animal, particularly a bat, and they didn t seek medical advice. Awareness of the facts about bats and rabies can help people protect themselves, their families, and their pets. This information may
http://www.cdc.gov/rabies/bats/education/




SamDawkins wrote:
http://rosarubicondior.blogspot.com/



FRIDAY, 27 NOVEMBER 2015

Does God Like Bats But Hate The Rest of Us?
The evolution of bat nucleic acid-sensing Toll-like receptors - Escalera-Zamudio - 2015 - Molecular Ecology - Wiley Online Library

Here is today's embarrassing question for creationists. Does your hypothetical intelligent designer favour bats and hate the rest of us?

The reason you need to answer this is because a paper published today shows that bats have a better immune system than other mammals. I'm assuming that creationists only believe in one intelligent designer and not millions of competing intelligent designers all closely guarding their designs and refusing to share.

So, if this supposed intelligent designer can design a better immune system for bats, why did it design a lesser one for the rest of us? Of course, this ignores considerations about why an immune system is needed at all and why a benevolent god would have designed parasites from which an immune system tries to protect us but that's a different issue. I have never managed to find a creationist with the honesty, integrity and courage to tackle the question of there parasites fit in a perfect world designed by a perfect and maximally benevolent designer so I doubt I'll get one now.

So, let's just concentrate on why this supposed designer gave bats a better immune system.

The paper was published in Molecular Ecology by an international team lead by Marina Escalera-Zamudio from the Department of Wildlife Diseases, Leibniz Institute for Zoo and Wildlife Research, Berlin, Germany. It shows that bats have a much more efficient system of Toll-like Receptors (TLRs). TLRs are considered to be the first-line defense against pathogens and recognise a wide range of pathogenic molecular signatures.

Bats exhibit traits unique amongst mammals, such as flight, and across different species they have an exceptional breadth in diet, a result of their long-term adaptation to a wide variety of environments and ecological niches. These niches also have specific pathogen profiles which are likely to have shaped the evolution of the bat TLRs in an order-specific manner.

Marina Escalera-Zamudio
Regrettably, the paper published by John Wiley & Sons, Inc. is copyright protected and, although the abstract is available online, permission to reprint it is closely guarded. If I obtain this permission I will reprint it here. Meanwhile one can only hope for the day when all scientific research is freely available and accessible to all.

What this finding suggests is an answer to the problem of why bats seem to act as a reservoir species for some pathogens like rabies which can be transmitted by a bat bite but from which bats appear to be immune. Bats have also recently been implicated as a reservoir species for ebola.

So, from an intelligent design perspective, it's hard not to conclude that such an intelligent designer is not favouring bats by designing a superior immune system for them but deliberately withholding this new, improved design from other mammals, including its supposed favourite species, and what it created all the others for, humans.

Would any creationist like to deal with this question, or is it to be the usual avoidance of these difficult questions yet again whilst pretending the intelligent design notion is the best available explanation of the way things are?

Reference:
Escalera-Zamudio, M., Zepeda-Mendoza, M. L., Loza-Rubio, E., Rojas-Anaya, E., Méndez-Ojeda, M. L., Arias, C. F. and Greenwood, A. D. (2015), The evolution of bat nucleic acid-sensing Toll-like receptors. Mol Ecol, 24: 5899–5909. doi:10.1111/mec.13431
http://rosarubicondior.blogspot.com/ br br br b... (show quote)

Reply
Nov 27, 2015 13:07:53   #
RWNJ
 
SamDawkins wrote:
You sure touched on a lot of topics. None of which appear related to the topic of the article I posted.
It was interesting that in your summary paragraph you admit that climate change is real, and happening now. I think most rational people admit that climate change is real,and is a global issue ,not an "‘the phony hate America to destruction man caused climate change fraud’" that you claim it is.
Whether climate change is man made or part of some grand natural cycle is actually beside the point. Continuing to base our civilization on fossil fuel is stupid.Especially when viable renewable alternatives exist.

The Big Bang is backed up by irrefutable scientific theory. You assumption that at some point in time there was " nothing" has been proven to be inaccurate . http://www.impactnottingham.com/2013/10/dummies-guide-to-the-higgs-boson/
You sure touched on a lot of topics. None of which... (show quote)


Question. How can there be something, without there first being nothing? There had to be a time when there was nothing. No matter. No energy. No space or time. Otherwise, something would have to be eternal. This is impossible for anything of a physical nature. But not impossible for God.

Reply
Nov 27, 2015 13:31:48   #
Gener
 
RWNJ wrote:
Question. How can there be something, without there first being nothing? There had to be a time when there was nothing. No matter. No energy. No space or time. Otherwise, something would have to be eternal. This is impossible for anything of a physical nature. But not impossible for God.



Hi RWNJ

I don't totally disagree with you, but just to put this in another light: According to the theory of relativity, time slows down as we approach the speed of light. Studies have shown also that the speed of light is the same whether an object is moving toward the source, or away from the source. I have never heard a scientist say this, but I think sometimes they overlook the obvious, is that, if that is the case then the speed of light is an illusion, therefore time is an illusion, and so is the space time continuum. The implications of this is that the eternal now is the only reality. Things change constantly and in changing they originally go back to the source. But once again, that is all illusion. So where does the illusion come from? From only one source, that source is mind, that is the ONLY thing that exists, and nothing else does exist except for the illusion created by that mind.

Therefore, there is really no time, no space, nothing. But there is consciousness, and nothing else. The Chinese book called the I Ching explains this in the first two hexagrams, the yin and the yang. Scientists who study this though, are often not truly honest about the ramifications of this, and will go out of their way to make any scientific discovery look like it points to an atheistic view.

The story in the gospels about the prodigal son can be read on many levels, but on one level it is a veiled story about the origin of the universe, and the big bang. The Son, (matter created by the Father-consciousness) goes out into the universe. It finds however, that this is just a shell and an illusion, and eventually goes back to the Father. In other words the expansion eventually returns to contraction and the universe once again folds in upon itself, (in the context of the illusion).

in reality however, big bangs are going on all the time, and galaxies are expanding and contracting all the time based on where they are in the process. These are displayed in the form of supernovas, and then black holes. This is history repeating itself, (it is cyclical, not just linear) and is continuous. The last two chapters of the I ching express this very well as well. The second law of thermodynamics says that left to themselves, all things will tend to break down. This is only one half of the facts though. When things fall apart, they reorganize themselves into new forms, so you always have a form of involution and evolution going on. Scientists see this second part and come up with the theory of evolution. They are partly correct in the theory, just not in the application of the theory. Not only nature on planet earth balances itself, but the entire universe does, even with mankind in the way. This is a fundamental principle of Taoism, and Hebrew code, and requires a consciousness to make it work. In this sense there is no God as fundamentalism often thinks of it, only a "universal subconscious mind." Conscious is the only thing that exists. Nothing else does. Not even time. Yet for us, for all practical purposes, it does exist.

Reply
Nov 27, 2015 14:03:50   #
Kazudy
 
SamDawkins,are you sorry God made you a human? Do you rather be a bat? I'm sure God can arrange that.

Reply
Page <<first <prev 3 of 6 next> last>>
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Main
OnePoliticalPlaza.com - Forum
Copyright 2012-2024 IDF International Technologies, Inc.