15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense (page 8)

pomegranate

Hey Jan!!

What about BACTERIA you bogus microbiologist?

Now, let's look at your science fact shall we?

In fact, evolution can be precisely defined as any change in the frequency of alleles within a gene pool from one generation to the next." (Helena Curtis and N. Sue Barnes, Biology, 5th ed. 1989 Worth Publishers, p.974)

Let's examine the WORD alleles shall we?

allele (

One member of a pair or series of genes that occupy a specific position on a specific chromosome.

That doesn't CHANGE WITH BIRTH Jan the scam.

pomegranate

Remember Jan, I will have a hard time believeing ANYTHING you say now because you refute simple SCIENTIFIC FACT out of your own self induced ignorance.

Jan says:

First, bacteria was not the earliest life.

But, the truth is, that is a lie. Every average HIGH SCHOOL science student knows this as FACT.

Right Jan?

dubla

jan-

I accept your capitulation.

lol.

aa

Grunt

Jan,
Get your head out of your ass and think a little bit. Do you ever think about how much you insult people? You call me a redneck, you say others rant, you claim you are trying to educate them, you ask if they even know what the periodic table is, in short you run your mouth and say insulting things to people. Things must be tough in Norway, maybe you got some bad fish, I don't know. I do know that you can disagree without resorting to namecalling. You remind me of a husband who is always trying to tell his wife he is the boss, when constantly saying it just proves the opposite. Assuring everyone of your education and intelligence only shows you have no class and a poor education at least in part.
When you post a provocative title as you did you are fishing for a response which I guess you got. This gives you a chance to "rant" as you accuse others of doing and to make generalizations while refusing to really consider the other view. Like the people you condemn, the fundies, you are not really listening, only waiting for your turn to say the same old thing. Grow up.

Grunt

JanH

Pommoron,

Did you get that Dr. Suess?

Yes, the olderst known fossils is of bacteria. Thus they are the oldest life we have direct evidence of.

See http://www.wmnh.com/wmel0000.htm

But they were not the earliest forms of life on this planet.

In the Q&A section in Scientific American, you can find the following:

"We are in a similar predicament with our understanding of the origin of life. Since we don't have detailed information on the exact steps we will have to be content with developing plausible scenarios based on information concerning conditions on the early earth around the time life originated nearly four billion years ago. One plausible scenario holds that the first life on earth was based on ribonucleic acids (RNA), a simpler chemical cousin of DNA. Many researchers have focused on RNA because it can store genetic information and it can catalyze reactions; these are essential processes in living systems. In this scenario, it is proposed that RNA, a polymer (long-chain molecule), arose from the gradual stringing together of repeating chemical units, known as monomers, that naturally arose on the primitive earth."

See http://www.sciam.com/askexpert_question.cfm?articleID=00040547-723C-1C72-9EB7809EC588F2D7&catID=3&topicID=3 for the rest.

Obviously, scientists agree that the earliest life was not bacteria. who are based on DNA. DNA is way too complex to originate spontanously, as anyone should understand.

Many abiogenesis scholars also have suggested that the earliest forms of life were crystaline, not organic, and that organic life (carbon based) evolved by the aid of these earliest forms.

I think this was a far more serious reply than you deserved.

- Jan

JanH

Grunt,

Lost the discussion, so now you want to start a flame war instead?

Your original messages were extremely ignorant and stupid. I went to great lengths to explain why molecules don't behave like bricks, and you just repeated the same nonsense. I told you that. You are insulted? Well, I am insulted by people who make cock sure statements about topics they have zero knowledge about. To each his own.

- Jan

JanH

Pomidiot,

That doesn't CHANGE WITH BIRTH Jan the scam.

Just when I thought you couldn't make a more idiotic comment, you did.

An organism enters the gene pool at birth. I guess you could argue it happens at conception, in some form, but biologists do not treat embryos as part of a population. Thus, the gene pool does change at birth.

- Jan

pomegranate

Problem: These are NOT substantiated FACTS supported by the FOSSIL RECORD. These are 100% hypothetical WISHES.

Because this is a HUGE problem with the evolutionist. It seems a SHITLOAD of MICROBE Bugs came on the FOSSIL scene of things in ONE FELL SWOOP. BANG.

"Houston, we have a shitload of decomposers, please advise."

The other problem with evolution and bacteria is THEY SPREAD LIKE A RAGING BASTARD.

Go study these little bad asses of biology. There is NO WAY any THEORIZED life form LESSER than a bacteria could have survived the BARRIER WALL OF THE BACTERIA.

From Berkely again:

Bacteria are of such immense importance...capacity for rapid growth and reproduction.

Jan, I'll back off. I AM an arrogant no good SOB sometimes. That's one of my many faults.

Enjoy the thread, I'm outa here.

Adios!!

Edited by - pomegranate on 5 August 2002 16:25:15

Gedanken

Grunt: light doesn't travel in straight lines. Spacetime is curved. Your barn analogy is not even wrong, it's totally silly. Not only that, it's pretty damn obvious. Even a child can make the argument that complicate dthings all have makers. Problem is it's not true. Also, it's a very childish argument that tends to persist in those who never transecnd childlike thinking.

pomegranate: dear me, you do sound all het up. Believe me, the Encarta encylopedia is ok, but it's a bit like following Awake!. You need to do your own reasearch. Actually, the claim that you are hanging your hat on is under active dispute by a team from Oxford.

http://www.nature.com/nsu/020304/020304-6.html

Ironically, the guy (Schopf, from Ucla) who thought he found cyanobacteria might actually have discovered the primitives that Jan is talking about.

But the fact remains: bacteria don't necessarily rely on dead things to eat. So, poof goes your FOOD challenge.

Gedanken

pomegranate

Jan, learn to read, it's NOT the change in the gene pool as you have ERRONEOUSLY stated...it's the change in the FREQUNCY of ALLELES.

15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense

Share this