Debate Discussion Thread for: "Evidence supports creation...

[Anachronous Rex]

Re: Debate Discussion Thread for: "Evidence supports creatio

You can put my mistake from that anarchism thread in there too. Good times, that.

Oh, and on topic. If you're reading this Puppy, please please stop with the rainbow thing. It hurts my eyes (though it is fabulously camp.)

 

[Dragan Glas]

Re: Debate Discussion Thread for: "Evidence supports creatio

Greetings,

[* Desperately hopes this won't appear in the "Stupidest Thing..." !! *]

Well, technically speaking, it doesn't belong there since you aren't a creationist. But it might not be a bad idea to start a thread containing some stupid quotes from the regular contributors. I don't think any of us are innocent of the occasional bout of idiocy. And it's always fun to take the wind out of each others sails and give each other regular humility enemas.

Oh, thank you, thank you!! *sobs*

[Actually, technically-speaking I'm a "Creationist" - like Ken Miller...]

Kindest regards,

James

 

[Prolescum]

Re: Debate Discussion Thread for: "Evidence supports creatio

But it might not be a bad idea to start a thread containing some stupid quotes from the regular contributors.

Are you havin' a laugh? It'll be populated almost entirely with Prolescum quotes...

 

[Memeticemetic]

Re: Debate Discussion Thread for: "Evidence supports creatio

Oh, thank you, thank you!! *sobs*

[Actually, technically-speaking I'm a "Creationist" - like Ken Miller...]

Pfft. You can believe all day long that a god (or some spiritual whatever) created the universe. You don't become a creationist in my book until you start advocating against science and for your pet theology in its place. You've demonstrated adequately to me that you are far more scientifically proficient than I ever likely will be so the idea of referring to you as a creationist is absurd to me.

Are you havin' a laugh? It'll be populated almost entirely with Prolescum quotes...

Don't flatter yourself. Plenty of us are far stupider than you, mate.

 

[aeritano]

Re: Debate Discussion Thread for: "Evidence supports creatio

And Regarding Antibiotic Immunity: AntiBiotics work by Altering an Enzyme in the Bacteria in such a way as to Make it Lethal. Sometimes a Mutation Stops the Production of the Enzyme. Please Explain how Evolution Plans to Take away enough Parts to Turn a Germ into a Human.

Wow is this turtle guy joking?

Antibiotics work by altering the way the bacteria can grow and divide by crosslinking the bacterial wall to prevent division. As a result,, they build up pressure on the inside, snce most of the time, they act as porfrins and basically make the cell go pop! through turgor pressure.

few antibiotics effect the metabolism of the bacteria.. they do not make the enzymes cytotoxic to the bacteria..

and the red queen theory states why bacteria evolve antibiotic resistance

and its also disgranceful to think how a germ can turn into a human

there is an issue of multi cellular vs unicellular...

ENDOSYMBIONT THEORY FTW

 

[Gnug215]

Re: Debate Discussion Thread for: "Evidence supports creatio

You can put my mistake from that anarchism thread in there too. Good times, that.

Oh, and on topic. If you're reading this Puppy, please please stop with the rainbow thing. It hurts my eyes (though it is fabulously camp.)

Maybe, eh, we should let him know how fabulous he is for doing it? I imagine it would do wonders in terms of him stopping it.

 

[Undeath]

Re: Debate Discussion Thread for: "Evidence supports creatio

Antibiotics work by altering the way the bacteria can grow and divide by crosslinking the bacterial wall to prevent division. As a result,, they build up pressure on the inside, snce most of the time, they act as porfrins and basically make the cell go pop! through turgor pressure.

A bit of a broad generalisation; while many antibiotics, notably penicillin and its derivatives work like that, it isn't a global mechanism. Other compounds, such as Chloramphenicol, Kanamycin and Tetracycline (and derivatives) work by inhibiting protein synthesis, which means the bacteria can't grow properly and can't replace the enzymes that are degraded as part of the natural "housekeeping" of the cell. There are also a few other antibiotics with completely different mechanisms such as Metronidazol, which generates toxic species in anaerobes.

However, none of those mechanisms can in any way be said to make an enzyme toxic to the cell. At best, you could say the antibiotics are toxic to the enzymes themselves.

 

[Anachronous Rex]

Re: Debate Discussion Thread for: "Evidence supports creatio

Antibiotics work by altering the way the bacteria can grow and divide by crosslinking the bacterial wall to prevent division. As a result,, they build up pressure on the inside, snce most of the time, they act as porfrins and basically make the cell go pop! through turgor pressure.

A bit of a broad generalisation; while many antibiotics, notably penicillin and its derivatives work like that, it isn't a global mechanism. Other compounds, such as Chloramphenicol, Kanamycin and Tetracycline (and derivatives) work by inhibiting protein synthesis, which means the bacteria can't grow properly and can't replace the enzymes that are degraded as part of the natural "housekeeping" of the cell. There are also a few other antibiotics with completely different mechanisms such as Metronidazol, which generates toxic species in anaerobes.

However, none of those mechanisms can in any way be said to make an enzyme toxic to the cell. At best, you could say the antibiotics are toxic to the enzymes themselves.

I think you're probably talking over his head.

First make sure he knows what Gram-negative and Gram-positive mean.

 

[aeritano]

Re: Debate Discussion Thread for: "Evidence supports creatio

A bit of a broad generalisation; while many antibiotics, notably penicillin and its derivatives work like that, it isn't a global mechanism. Other compounds, such as Chloramphenicol, Kanamycin and Tetracycline (and derivatives) work by inhibiting protein synthesis, which means the bacteria can't grow properly and can't replace the enzymes that are degraded as part of the natural "housekeeping" of the cell. There are also a few other antibiotics with completely different mechanisms such as Metronidazol, which generates toxic species in anaerobes.

However, none of those mechanisms can in any way be said to make an enzyme toxic to the cell. At best, you could say the antibiotics are toxic to the enzymes themselves.

the fact that other then the really exotic bacteria infections that require specialized antibiotics, the overwhelming mechanism for destruction involved the synthesis and blocking the division of the cell wall. even the LDA (Last ditch antibiotics) like Methicillin and Vancomycin fucntion in stopping the cell wall from begin developed by not allowing the formation of the peptides needed to form the cell wall.

he made the argument that it was toxic to the cell.. not me... toxic to enzyme possibly, but the enzyme itself does not actively attack the bacteria. the overwhelming majority of antibiotics are competitive inhibitors that block the active site on an enzyme. and dont change the biochemistry of the enzyme. By blocking the active site, it may cause adverse side effects to the bacteria, but its not due to the enzyme itself like turtleboy was implying

 

[Undeath]

Re: Debate Discussion Thread for: "Evidence supports creatio

the fact that other then the really exotic bacteria infections that require specialized antibiotics, the overwhelming mechanism for destruction involved the synthesis and blocking the division of the cell wall. even the LDA (Last ditch antibiotics) like Methicillin and Vancomycin fucntion in stopping the cell wall from begin developed by not allowing the formation of the peptides needed to form the cell wall.

Duly noted; I guess this stems more from how I learned about antibiotics, where we learned about the ribosomal inhibitors first.

he made the argument that it was toxic to the cell.. not me...

Should've explicilty stated that I was agreeing with you in this last part, my apologies for the misunderstanding.

 

[Caractacus]

Re: Debate Discussion Thread for: "Evidence supports creatio

It hurts my eyes (though it is fabulously camp.)

As a *~*~fabulously~*~* camp person and the unofficial spokesperson for fabulously camp people everywhere I resent being associated with this cretinous buffoon.

 

[aeritano]

Re: Debate Discussion Thread for: "Evidence supports creatio

aeritano wrote:
the fact that other then the really exotic bacteria infections that require specialized antibiotics, the overwhelming mechanism for destruction involved the synthesis and blocking the division of the cell wall. even the LDA (Last ditch antibiotics) like Methicillin and Vancomycin fucntion in stopping the cell wall from begin developed by not allowing the formation of the peptides needed to form the cell wall.

Duly noted; I guess this stems more from how I learned about antibiotics, where we learned about the ribosomal inhibitors first.

Competitive inhibition of enzymes AND ribosomes dose play a role but the end function is mainly the failure to produce the needed peptides and components to construct the cell wall. Or in the case of penicillin, turning the cell wall into a rock So the main cause of bacteria death is lack of division.

So we are both right in that sense, but both of us probably had a few communication issues

Should've explicilty stated that I was agreeing with you in this last part, my apologies for the misunderstanding.

no problems what so ever

its all good, we're both biochemists i got your back bro!

*does the weird gangsta peace sign on his chest*

 

[iamthedinger]

Re: Debate Discussion Thread for: "Evidence supports creatio

i think puppy is starting to lose site of what the debate is about. i have a feeling this debate will end very soon.

 

[IBSpify]

Re: Debate Discussion Thread for: "Evidence supports creatio

i think puppy is starting to lose site of what the debate is about. i have a feeling this debate will end very soon.

He ever had site of what the debate was about? has he even really done anything to try and make his case or did he just try and discredit evolution.

 

[aeritano]

Re: Debate Discussion Thread for: "Evidence supports creatio

Turttleboy has no real formal education in biology grasp of biology or evolution

I have yet to see him provide any real evidence for his claims, despite the fact the burden of proof is on him...

 

[Prolescum]

Re: Debate Discussion Thread for: "Evidence supports creatio

If I had a soul it would have just killed itself in the eyes and its other weak spots.

 

[Rockbottom87]

Re: Debate Discussion Thread for: "Evidence supports creatio

I don't post often, seeing as most of you have usually said everything I wanted to say before me, but I do have to correct Hytegia here.

Even with the most CLEAR water, light only extends to around 20 feet below the surface based upon it's Refractive Index.

If that means that he thinks water only lets light through down to 20 feet, and below that it is dark, he is wrong. 20 feet is, what, a meter or 6?

Even if me meant 20 metres, there are certain parts of the ocean that have such clear water that secchi disks ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secchi_disk ) can be seen up to 70 metres down (I believe the place that set this record was near Easter Island.

 

[DutchLiam84]

Re: Debate Discussion Thread for: "Evidence supports creatio

Actually the euphotic zone can reach depths up to 200 meters (650ft.) but I think it's not what he meant by it.

 

[Inferno]

Re: Debate Discussion Thread for: "Evidence supports creatio

Gotta love his last post. Debate? This is "a bunch of one-liners answered by tonnes and tonnes of text".

 

[iamthedinger]

Re: Debate Discussion Thread for: "Evidence supports creatio

You say that 11,000 is too generous. That's almost the Point. That Number is The Farthest You could Possibly Go.

Please Explain how Canopy and Hydro plate Contradict Each other.

Can You Source your Claims about Water and Light

And About pressure, You do Realize that Decompressing takes time for an Object as Large as the Earth. And Ears are Aloud to Rupture

(How many more posts will be involved in this debate?)

it seems that puppy is no longer interested in providing evidence to support his claims and is now asking hytegia to just show evidence as to why these theories aren't possible.
i have no doubt that hytegia will provide a reference for the passing of wavelengths through water at different densities.

as far as pressure. puppy should just go ahead and look up what happens when someone goes from a high pressure area to a low pressure area...not even rapidly, something that could happen in hours, many hours.
http://adventure.howstuffworks.com/outdoor-activities/water-sports/question101.htm

and that's just a simple explanation of rapid decompression.

the way i see hydro plate theory and canopy theory contradicting each other is as such...

the midatlantic ridge seperates and the plates drop rapidly onto water held beneath the plates. this is supposed to expel water rapidly ( and somehow have enough energy to send water out faster than escape velocity and go skeet skeet skeet all over the moon). so 1 problem that even someone as uneducated as myself can see, is what happens when this large jet of water breaks the ice canopy. the ice would shatter and pommel the earth with various different sized pieces of ice.

based on this whole idea, if the ice falls to the earth there would be no safe zone from falling ice as the canopy supposedly covers the entire earth. the only place that ice wouldn't fall is around the ridge where the water was expelled. this cannot be a safe area as the jet of water would either 1. send the ark into the canopy destroying it and it's inhabitants. or 2. cause a massive tsunami that would undoubtably tumble the ark away from the spray zone and into the path of the incoming ice.

as i picture all of this in my head i find that michael bay should probably direct it...let's see if we can get some epic repeatable close call after close call action like 2012.

wait...i just confused myself......do people actually buy into this crap?


last...puppy seems to be growing tired from his debate as he questions how many more posts will be involved.

i say this debate should be archived under the heading "kicking puppies" or "WTF puppy" or....."c'mon dude...even a 10 year old could come up with better responses"

man i hope i don't look like a dumbass posting this...i know i'm not educated in the areas that are being brought up in this debate but i'd like to think i have a basic understanding of how the world works..