Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

Re: The Reason the Theory of Evolution is Not True

28 views
Skip to first unread message

RonO

unread,
Aug 26, 2016, 7:01:19 AM8/26/16
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On 8/24/2016 12:52 AM, Steady Eddie wrote:
> On Tuesday, 23 August 2016 20:31:27 UTC-6, Bill Rogers wrote:
>> On Tuesday, August 23, 2016 at 9:31:27 PM UTC-4, Alan Kleinman MD PhD wrote:
>>
>>> Ron, why do you think combination therapy works for the treatment of HIV? Single drug therapy gives resistant viruses in a week, three drugs targeting 2 genetic loci and the evolutionary process is suppressed for decades.
>>
>> Ron, and everybody else you've been arguing with understands the mathematics of selections involving single versus multiple drugs. It's pretty damn simple. What Ron, and everybody else do not see is any clear argument from you that selection with multiple lethal drugs is a good model for the sorts of natural selection that occur in the wold and drive evolution outside of a medical setting. Maybe you could fill in the missing steps by giving a few examples of natural selection that work like multiple drug treatments, and then showing why they are typical of natural selection in the wild.
>
> Dr. K, and everybody else you've been arguing with understands that scientific research must have something to do with the real world.
> How much more real than HIV killing people do you need?
>
> Dr. K, and everybody else you've been arguing with also understands that HIV are a "wild" organism.
> What, do you think we designed HIV in the lab?
>
> Well?
>

Eddie, can you try to think and reason for just a second. Just a couple
of minutes is all that it should take.

Where have you seen Kleinman's probability argument before? Not just
the stupidity that failed the scientific creationists over 30 years ago,
but more recent IDiot stupidity. I'll give you a hint. Kleinman is
looking at what he thinks is the edge of evolution. His example is
multiple drug resistance that is relatively improbable. He has no
examples of this limit existing in nature. His own example is already
known to occur naturally. He is just proposing that there is a way to
inhibit multiple drug resistance from occurring. That is all that he is
doing.

You are currently going on about the more recent IDiot failure of this
stupid argument. Behe's Edge of Evolution was published back in 2007,
and what did it amount to for IDiots? The IDiot "scientists" in the
ISCID quit the following year and the ID Network "academic" IDiots quit
the year after that. Behe's junk amounted to nothing and was so
impressively useless that most IDiots that understood the junk quit the
ID scam. Most IDiots had likely given up before that, but the book did
not bring them back. Behe's book has amounted to nothing in nearly 10
years.

So what do you think that you are trying to do with this failed
creationist argument? It is obviously a failure even among creationists.

Ron Okimoto

0 new messages