I should add you started the discussion and brought religion into the discussion so stop blaming us
this thread was started by Bill Gill and moved from a thread that is in the general science forum.
http://www.scienceagogo.com/forum/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=46789#Post46789 I did not break religion in the discussion.
I was asking questions and making some pretty good points about the proposed evolution proof that has been attached to the experiment.
I showed that the bacteria involved was manufactured in a lab
and that the bacteria did not naturally acquire the ability to metabolize citrates as in natural selection.
If you don't want to discuss religion don't bring it into the discussion and we won't either, I am happy to respect each other.
I didn't , the first mention of Creation in the thread was made by one of the "we" you attach yourself to and that was in the original thread in the general science forum.
Bill s
Could this quote from this week's "UK Safari" say anything relevant to the creation/evolution debate?
"Red-eared Terrapins were brought over here from United States for the pet trade. Remember the Mutant Ninja Turtle craze? When their owners found out how big they got, and how difficult they were to keep, many of those pet terrapins were let loose in ponds and lakes up and down the U.K.
They manage to survive our cold winters by sleeping at the bottom of ponds, and taking in oxygen by passing water over special membranes in the throat. It's thought that special sacs in the cloaca (rectal area) can also absorb oxygen!
It's incredible to think that while some humans are able to talk through their backsides these reptiles have actually evolved a method of breathing through them. Which begs the question, if a vet needed to resuscitate a pet terrapin with breathing difficulties... which end should get the kiss of life?"
No drawing comparisons with SAGG posters, please!!!
then the discussion was moved by Bill Gill's request to the NQS forum , in true scientific form , along with any other evidence that might offend evolution , this is a scientist way of controlling / protecting evidence that might detract from his belief system.
in the new thread the first mention of Creation was first mentioned by Bill s again.
Which brings us back to creation - which is certainly not denied by all those who are prepared accept that evolution might have something of value to say.
the very next mention was made by Bill Gill.
And so gentle readers once again we see that the creationists refuse to accept experiment
the first time that I mentioned Creation was on the second
page of the second thread , where I said.
why would creationism have a need to be a science anyway?
I never have claimed that creationism was a science , I have
always just claimed that evolution is not correct.
as usual , and in true scientific form your two comments are found
to be misleading and incorrect.
I should add you started the discussion and brought religion into the discussion so stop blaming us
If you don't want to discuss religion don't bring it into the discussion and we won't either, I am happy to respect each other.
I was only trying to make some sense out of the experiment , it
was the "us" and "we" who vectored the discussion towards
Creation.
as I said earlier.
I have said many times that I
didn't want to discuss religion on a science discussion forum ,
it is the non believers that seem to want to discuss religion.
I only wanted to discuss evolution , but I suppose that
evolution is only to be discussed between evolutionist.
this way the "us" and "we" can pat each other on the back and
prove themselves to be correct to themselves.
