Argument by bad analogy

Originally posted by KellyJay
I answered you missed it?

Originally posted by Proper Knob
I read it four times, I can't make head or tail of what you're getting at. The first sentence for instance is not grammatically correct. Perhaps you could reframe it?

I hope KellyJay agrees with and is satisfied with my answer. Why aren't you?

Countless scientists in ever scientific discipline may not agree with those that do too.

Is that clearer. Obviously, you are both talking about scientists, so that should have been understood.

Originally posted by RJHinds
Antibotic resistance results from the bacteria losing genetic information.

Nope. To be resistent to antibiotics, the bacteria needs extra genes that will allow it to build one of several possible defences. When we put pressure on a colony of bacteria with antibiotics, only those that have the genes to survive will survive and reproduce, meaning all their offspring will have the same resistence from that point on. It's never about losing information, but gaining it.

Originally posted by Proper Knob
I read it four times, I can't make head or tail of what you're getting at. The first sentence for instance is not grammatically correct. Perhaps you could reframe it?

Its a wash, some agree some do not, I don't answer for either or both sides.

Originally posted by KellyJay
Its a wash, some agree some do not, I don't answer for either or both sides.

A wash? What does that mean?

Originally posted by Proper Knob
A wash? What does that mean?

It means it's clean, I guess.

Originally posted by Proper Knob
A wash? What does that mean?

Some agree some do not, I don't speak for either group.

Originally posted by KellyJay
Some agree some do not, I don't speak for either group.

So, in short, you have absolutely no idea why so many scientists from a diverse range of scientific disciplines have continually managed to be hopelessly wrong year after year, yet other scientists using the same laws of nature and the same scientific process produce spectacular results?

Originally posted by Proper Knob
So, in short, you have absolutely no idea why so many scientists from a diverse range of scientific disciplines have continually managed to be hopelessly wrong year after year, yet other scientists using the same laws of nature and the same scientific process produce spectacular results?

No more than you do of those that don't share your views.

Originally posted by KellyJay
No more than you do of those that don't share your views.

Let's examine that. You on the one hand are alleging that all the knowledge gathered through the scienctific process, pretty much since it's inception with the Ancient Greeks, is wrong. A 3,000 year deception/failure on the part of millions of scientists from a multitude of faiths and backgrounds. Yet when I asked for your evidence to support your worldview, you admit to having nothing. No evidence that humans lived with dinosaurs, no evidence the universe and all within it is a few thousand years old and no evidence to support your claim that 'science' has been involved in the biggest cockup known to humanity for 3,000 years.

What exactly do you have Kelly?

Originally posted by Proper Knob


What exactly do you have Kelly?

A book.

Originally posted by Proper Knob
Let's examine that. You on the one hand are alleging that all the knowledge gathered through the scienctific process, pretty much since it's inception with the Ancient Greeks, is wrong. A 3,000 year deception/failure on the part of millions of scientists from a multitude of faiths and backgrounds. Yet when I asked for your evidence to support your worldv ...[text shortened]... ved in the biggest cockup known to humanity for 3,000 years.

What exactly do you have Kelly?

I'm not alleging that all knowledge gathered through the scientific process
is wrong. I said that where you have people you have built in issues due to
the nature of man.

Originally posted by C Hess
Nope. To be resistent to antibiotics, the bacteria needs extra genes that will allow it to build one of several possible defences. When we put pressure on a colony of bacteria with antibiotics, only those that have the genes to survive will survive and reproduce, meaning all their offspring will have the same resistence from that point on. It's never about losing information, but gaining it.

In the cases you are referring to the bacteria that survived probably had those genes to begin with and you already pointed out that information can be transferred between bacteria, which also I believe happens in the mating process between animals. But none of the information is newly created by evolution as you wish to believe.

I am pretty sure that mutations can result in losing information. 😏

Originally posted by RJHinds
In the cases you are referring to the bacteria that survived probably had those genes to begin with and you already pointed out that genes can be transferred between bacteria, which also I believe happens in the mating process between animals.

I am pretty sure that mutations can result in losing information. 😏

If you receive genetic material from another organism, clearly you haven't lost information but gained it. You're right that there are mutations that result in loss of genetic information (RecLOH for instance). Though I've never read an example where loss of genetic material leads to a new trait (like antibiotic resistence), I must admit I'm in deep water right now, as I haven't read a lot of material on this particular type of mutation, so I could be wrong.

Originally posted by C Hess
If you receive genetic material from another organism, clearly you haven't lost information but gained it. You're right that there are mutations that result in loss of genetic information (RecLOH for instance). Though I've never read an example where loss of genetic material leads to a new trait (like antibiotic resistence), I must admit I'm in deep water rig ...[text shortened]... w, as I haven't read a lot of material on this particular type of mutation, so I could be wrong.

I could be wrong too. Are we not both getting our information from second and third hand sources, at least?

Originally posted by KellyJay
I'm not alleging that all knowledge gathered through the scientific process
is wrong. I said that where you have people you have built in issues due to
the nature of man.

You do however believe that approximately half of all scientific disciplines are largely wrong.
You dispute much of, and in some cases most of:
Biology, Physics, Astronomy, Geology, Archaeology, and others.