Evolution Vs. Creationism

[DeistPrimate]

well its just that i would expect him to be truthful in how he made us (or didnt make us) and if I am to believe the account of creation, i'd have to believe that he made mankind separate from the animals. he didnt use existing monkeys to make us... according to him he personally created man and woman.
and i dont have a cartooney perception of God at all... far from it.

Here we see the core problem you share with all who hold a creationism position, you assume the Bible to be God's word, "according to 'Him'".

God is speaking to you from the very stones, the animals...long past and present. S/He isn't lying at all, you'd just rather worship a book written by your fellow Man rather than God in Hir true form.

 

[outhouse]

you assume the Bible to be God's word

isnt that the truth.

Bible was written by ancient man for ancient man. Harry potter has as much god in it as the bible

 

[Dirty Penguin]

The same thing can be said about this nylon 6 though. It isn't actual nylon 6 either just some byproducts of it.

From Wiki article Poly linked;
In 1975 a team of Japanese scientists discovered a strain of Flavobacterium, living in ponds containing waste water from a nylon factory, that was capable of digesting certain byproducts of nylon 6 manufacture…

They are just byproducts of the nylon 6 that people threw in a pound full of waste. It isn’t like it was an actual piece of nylon (note; there are many different “types”) that someone took outside and the bacteria just jumped on it and started eating it. As a matter of fact, it sounds like a manmade accident or a discovery that people just stumbled upon more so than evolution. Stuff like that is why there are so many environmentalists now, because people don’t know the proper way to dispose of manmade waste and materials. Stuff like that is why there are Pagans gathering at Stonehenge asking the gods for help and showing their respects for the planet, wanting to build their new religion around environmental issues.

This is all besides the point. The point is the bacteria was able to (adapt) and be able to digest a man made material. This is evidence of evolution. There are no accidents.

 

[Gloone]

This is all besides the point. The point is the bacteria was able to (adapt) and be able to digest a man made material. This is evidence of evolution. There are no accidents.

Well you can call it evolution, marvel and drool over all you want. I will call it for what it is, Toxic Waste that was created by man. There is nothing natural or special about it.

 

[Valjean]

The marvel's not the "toxic waste," Gloone, it's the evolution of an organism to eat it.

 

[Gloone]

The marvel's not the "toxic waste," Gloone, it's the evolution of an organism to eat it.

Okay well let me reiterate.

It still doesn't answer the question as to where the bacteria came from. If nylon is strictly a man made material (recent man made material) then where did these bacteria come from?

The bacteria were already in the pound. I call it some type of decomposition, evolutionist call it an adaptation for bacteria in their altered environment even though it was toxic waste that was placed in it by man. Bacteria did not just appear out of nowhere, they were already there.

This is all besides the point. The point is the bacteria was able to (adapt) and be able to digest a man made material. This is evidence of evolution. There are no accidents.

And now Dirty is dismissing my argument that it was just a byproduct of nylon not actual nylon and agreeing with Pegg the creationist on evolution. Wow isn’t that something. So now that we are all on the same page, what is the significance of this stumbled upon discovery? Since it is obvious it wasn’t intentionally done, unless the people that were making a waste pond were “hoping” it would just dissolve and go away naturally on its own.

 

[LuisDantas]

Gloone, the decomposition does not happen without the bacteria. The bacteria do in fact eat the fabric. It can be seen happening under a microscope.

It took decades for those bacteria to find that material and begin to eat it. Why do you think it is so?

 

[LuisDantas]

Okay well let me reiterate.

The bacteria were already in the pound. I call it some type of decomposition, evolutionist call it an adaptation for bacteria in their altered environment even though it was toxic waste that was placed in it by man. Bacteria did not just appear out of nowhere, they were already there.

Those strains that eat nylon subproducts were not already there.

If they were, nylon would decompose from its initial production, and it didn't; it took decades, because that is the time it took for mutations to produce a strain capable of such.

And now Dirty is dismissing my argument that it was just a byproduct of nylon not actual nylon and agreeing with Pegg the creationist on evolution. Wow isn’t that something.

The fact remains that until recently it did not decompose, nor were bacteria found that could consume it.

So now that we are all on the same page, what is the significance of this stumbled upon discovery? Since it is obvious it wasn’t intentionally done, unless the people that were making a waste pond were “hoping” it would just dissolve and go away naturally on its own.

It shows that new breeds of bacteria develop spontaneously, which is a good example of natural selection at work.

 

[DeistPrimate]

Okay well let me reiterate.
The bacteria were already in the pound. I call it some type of decomposition, evolutionist call it an adaptation for bacteria in their altered environment even though it was toxic waste that was placed in it by man. Bacteria did not just appear out of nowhere, they were already there.
And now Dirty is dismissing my argument that it was just a byproduct of nylon not actual nylon and agreeing with Pegg the creationist on evolution. Wow isn’t that something. So now that we are all on the same page, what is the significance of this stumbled upon discovery? Since it is obvious it wasn’t intentionally done, unless the people that were making a waste pond were “hoping” it would just dissolve and go away naturally on its own.

Wow, still not on the same page at all - they just can't allow themselves to get it.

Those strains that eat nylon subproducts were not already there.
If they were, nylon would decompose from its initial production, and it didn't; it took decades, because that is the time it took for mutations to produce a strain capable of such.
The fact remains that until recently it did not decompose, nor were bacteria found that could consume it.
It shows that new breeds of bacteria develop spontaneously, which is a good example of natural selection at work.

An excellent recap, let's see if Gloon finally gets it....for my money I'd have to bet still not.

Good grief how can it ever be an equal discussion when even the simplest most straightforward evidence is totally over one side's head.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Well you can call it evolution, marvel and drool over all you want. I will call it for what it is, Toxic Waste that was created by man. There is nothing natural or special about it.

See LuisDantas post. It is spot on.

 

[tumbleweed41]

Well, one thing is abundantly clear.
Gloone has no idea what biological decomposition entails. Nor is he at all willing to remove the blinders of his ignorance to learn.

"Oh simple ones, learn prudence; Oh fools, learn sense."

 

[Autodidact]

Well you can call it evolution, marvel and drool over all you want. I will call it for what it is, Toxic Waste that was created by man. There is nothing natural or special about it.

Not the nylon, Gloone, the nylon BUG. The bacteria evolved. It didn't exist before. It evolved out of an existing species. It's a new species of bacteria that evolved right before our eyes in the exact manner described and predicted by ToE. Get it?

 

[Autodidact]

Okay well let me reiterate.

The bacteria were already in the pound. I call it some type of decomposition, evolutionist call it an adaptation for bacteria in their altered environment even though it was toxic waste that was placed in it by man. Bacteria did not just appear out of nowhere, they were already there.

Yes, of course they were there. But they couldn't eat the nylon, see? Then a single bacteria happened to come into existence with a mutation that allowed it to digest the nylon. Because it had all it could eat, and could reproduce freely, it increased in numbers until there were billions of it. That type of bacteria is a new species, never before seen on the planet. We know it's new because nylon is new, so no bacteria before could possibly digest it. The bacteria population changed. It evolved. This is exactly what ToE says happens, get it? We can see ToE happening before our very eyes. That is, if you know what it says, you can.

And now Dirty is dismissing my argument that it was just a byproduct of nylon not actual nylon and agreeing with Pegg the creationist on evolution. Wow isn’t that something. So now that we are all on the same page, what is the significance of this stumbled upon discovery? Since it is obvious it wasn’t intentionally done, unless the people that were making a waste pond were “hoping” it would just dissolve and go away naturally on its own.

The significance of it is that ToE is correct. New species emerge from existing species by descent with modification by mutations plus natural selection. Get it?

 

[Gloone]

I get it, I understand how it works. It is just one thing to say bacteria eats nylon when really doesn't. Just the byproducts. Besides bacteria feeding on the waste was something I had already mentioned in a earlier post.

 

[Gloone]

Gloone, the decomposition does not happen without the bacteria. The bacteria do in fact eat the fabric. It can be seen happening under a microscope.

It took decades for those bacteria to find that material and begin to eat it. Why do you think it is so?

If Nylon or w/e it takes to make it is a fairly new product then it couldn't have taken decades or that long. It is more like giving pre-existing steroids and making them rage. I don't think it takes that long for people to create new bacteria in a lab. What is the difference?

 

[Autodidact]

I get it, I understand how it works. It is just one thing to say bacteria eats nylon when really doesn't. Just the byproducts. Besides bacteria feeding on the waste was something I had already mentioned in a earlier post.

It's the waste! The waste! It's been the waste all along. It's the effluent from a nylon factory. It's also irrelevant to the point, which is that neither one existed in the past for a bug to eat. Do you grasp that this is evolution in action?

 

[Gloone]

It shows that new breeds of bacteria develop spontaneously, which is a good example of natural selection at work.

This is a fib and I don't agree with this. They did not spontaneously develop. They were induced by an unnatural outside source.

 

[LuisDantas]

If Nylon or w/e it takes to make it is a fairly new product then it couldn't have taken decades or that long.

Why not? It was a random mutation, after all. It could have never happened, even.

It is more like giving pre-existing steroids and making them rage. I don't think it takes that long for people to create new bacteria in a lab. What is the difference?

Sorry, I don't get the comparison with steroids at all.

The difference, of course, is that natural selection is indeed natural. It doesn't happen in labs.

 

[LuisDantas]

This is a fib and I don't agree with this. They did not spontaneously develop. They were induced by an unnatural outside source.

They were? What would that source be then?

 

[Gloone]

Okay well I am done with this conversation. I am not going to repeat myself 100 more times.