Go back to previous topic
Forum nameOkay Activist Archives
Topic subjectis that supposed to disprove the paper in some way?
Topic URLhttp://board.okayplayer.com/okp.php?az=show_topic&forum=22&topic_id=3805&mesg_id=3877
3877, is that supposed to disprove the paper in some way?
Posted by 40thStreetBlack, Tue Sep-30-03 03:24 PM
>The
>articles in Nature.

Unlike the claims of biblical creationists, nobody said the publications in Nature were "infallible" - if you can prove it to be wrong on a scientific basis, then by all means, do so. In addition to the great satisfation of winning an internet debate with an anonymous stranger, you will make a name for yourself in the field of genetics and should be able to parlay that into an NSF research fellowship or something equally impressive and rewarding in the field. So go for the gusto, man!

>E Coli and B Aphidicola are in the same order...of course
>there's a common "ancestor", just like apes and man are in
>the same order.

Is that supposed to do something to disprove the paper?

>We have a mythical common ancestor with the
>other primates as well.

And I suppose our REAL, non-mythical ancestors were named Adam and Eve, right? LOL, you're funny.


>is the genome of a strain of B Aphidicola. As you click on
>different genes it will compare the sequence to the sequence
>of other bacteria. It would seem that B Aphidicola shares
>code with a lot of different bacteria species, not just E
>Coli.

This is hilarious - that link is from the same people who published the Nature article... how is that supposed to disprove the paper?

>It's amazing that we don't give God the same credit that we
>give ourselves. If we go into an art gallery, we can tell a
>Picasso painting because of the brush strokes he used,
>themes, colors. No one says,"oh these Picasso paintings are
>similar, they must've evolved from one picture!!" No, his
>idea of how to paint them may have evolved, his mood as he
>painted may have evolved, but each painting is a creation.

That was a thouroughly unconvincing analogy.

>But when it comes to God's creation, everything that God did
>to prove one creator is a sign to us of things evolving from
>one thing to the next. What a funny world, we don't believe
>in an omniscient God,yet we're building quantum computers
>that work on the same principles.

Um, nobody is building quantum computers on the principles of an omniscient god... drugs are bad, mmmkay?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"I do mind, the Dude minds. This will not stand, ya know, this aggression will not stand, man." - The Dude