Creationists

[Hollie]

Why waste your time trying to figure how non life produced life when there is no evidence to support the thought ?

What you sweepingly miss is that the premise of biological life erupting from the basic chemical compounds that make up all life is entirely possible. All of the chemical elements that constitute biological life exist in the universe. The most basic compounds of biological life are in abundance in the cosmos.

As is routine, we're left with the christian fundies insisting their consolidation of all the gawds that preceded their gawds are somehow, by magical means they cannot discern or fathom, are now "the" designer gawds of choice for reasons which are not even particularly intuitive.

All the components for super computers exist too but they don't spontaneously erupt. Neither do watches!

You would need a basic understanding of biological organisms vs. non-biological for the preceding to help you understand.

Now would be a good time to toss in the stupendously stupid Christian creationist analogy that questions why mechanical parts don't leap off a shelf and assemble into a car.

 

[Youwerecreated]

yes I do know what degree you hold it's a A.A. unless that's a lie too.
doing the "work" of a molecular biologist"is not the same as being one.
still waiting on that paper .

How do you not understand this ?



I have a Masters in Biology (from a 5 year BS/MS program) and for the past 4 years I’ve been working as a lab manager/technician. I have my own research project(s) in addition to keeping track of ordering/equipment maintenance/mouse breeding/etc. All-in-all it’s a sweet gig and I could see myself doing this or something similar for most of my career. The problem is that there seems to be this culture in biology that one has to get a PhD, and my competitive side kind of feels the need to get one mostly just to show that I can. My practical side can’t figure out why it would be worth taking a pay cut for 5+ years of extra stress just to continue doing what I’m already doing. I have no desire to run my own lab, and have little desire to teach.

My very short answer: no.

If you are considering keeping your professional options open, then perhaps consider getting another master’s degree, either in a technical speciality, such as computational biology or statistics, or an MBA, which has some ‘credentialing’ value*.

The Ph.D. is not for that. As the reader correctly notes, a Ph.D. will be at least five years of more work and stress for less pay than a qualified lab tech. Actually, it will be more closer to ten years, and you might need to relocate a couple of times. It doesn’t sound like that’s what the reader wants to do.

To get a Ph.D. (in biology anyway), I think it requires four things:


1) A passion for biology. It has to go beyond ‘somewhat interesting.’

2) A willingness to spend a lot of time wanting to solve a particular problem.

3) A desire to live the ‘life of the mind’–you have to be really intellectually curious, and that curiosity has to be your lodestar.

4) This is the most important: you have to be willing to prioritize #1-3 above many other things, such as where you live, job stability, setting aside retirement income, and so on**. Worse, to capitalize on the Ph.D., at least in academia, you will have to keep prioritizing those things until you get tenure (business and non-profits can be a different matter).

I would also add that I’ve seen too many Ph.D.s who, upon graduating, are little more than glorified lab technicians. They haven’t been rigorously trained in any intellectual sense (they are supposed to be doctors of philosophy). Since the reader is already doing that (and enjoying it), why suffer through the Ph.D.? It definitely should not be the new B.Sc. or M.S.

*When it comes to the worth of an MBA (besides the networking, learning some basic lingo, and gaining a credential), I’m inclined to agree with Matthew Shaw’s argument in The Management Myth: an MBA is really just a poor philosophy degree (both the education and the philosophy are poor). If the world were organized according to the Mad Biologist, I would hire mathematically and statistically knowledgeable philosophy PhDs and MAs, not MBAs.

**To a considerable extent, a Ph.D. and post-doc retard one’s ability to become a ‘normal’ adult. Many parts of your life revolve around moving to the next stage, as opposed to actually living one’s life. There is little job stability, the pay sucks, you don’t know when you might move up, and you have to geographically relocate often. You really better love what you do, or find something else to do.


Noun
•S: (n) molecular biologist (a biologist who studies the structure and activity of macromolecules essential to life)

Definition for molecular biologist:
Web definitions:
a biologist who studies the structure and activity of macromolecules essential to life.

So what am I daws ? You are just spewing nonsense now daws as usual.

you forgot the link ...these are not your words
but to answer your question you're a poser playing at being a biologist. and failing.

I have seen that you wish not to debate me on the subject in your own words. Hell you can't even do it with your copying and pasting.

 

[daws101]

I don't think this is the proper forum to discuss your urinary incontinence old man.

what the fuck would you know about proper?
you cherry picked the post.
then made not funny been done joke..
the folks at rehab must love you.

Next time in english if you don't mind.

now that's funny.. you who have proven you cannot read or spell would ask that.
BTW it's perfect english, syntax, and punctuation. if you weren't illiterate you'd know that.

 

[newpolitics]

By seeing the working of cells it is easy to believe that they did not come in to existence by an undirected source.

The working of the cancer cell lead you to that? A wonder to behold.

Your "feelings" are inadequate as a means to an end for a gawd conclusion. The point is, your belief in a particular collection of gawds was simply happenstance; a function of your parentage and place of birth.

Your "feelings" based tenets regarding your gawds are completely unreliable in terms of offering the most basic of proofs. That is why the Christian creationist movement is intellectually bankrupt in terms of positive evidence for the gawds.

Do you realize what you are saying? Cancer cells are the result of copying errors or...wait for it... mutations!! Darwin is evil because he caused cancer.

So you are agreeing that mutations do occur? Why then, and on what grounds, can you preclude a beneficial mutation for a species if a mutation is only a copying error, if this copying error were to take place during meiosis? Explain the mechanism that might prevent this. If you can't, then you have no basis on which to doubt mutations being beneficial.

 

[Youwerecreated]

What you sweepingly miss is that the premise of biological life erupting from the basic chemical compounds that make up all life is entirely possible. All of the chemical elements that constitute biological life exist in the universe. The most basic compounds of biological life are in abundance in the cosmos.

As is routine, we're left with the christian fundies insisting their consolidation of all the gawds that preceded their gawds are somehow, by magical means they cannot discern or fathom, are now "the" designer gawds of choice for reasons which are not even particularly intuitive.

All the components for super computers exist too but they don't spontaneously erupt. Neither do watches!

You been a basic understanding of biological organisms vs. non-biological for the preceding to help you understand.

Now would be a good time to toss in the stupendously stupid Christian creationist analogy that questions why mechanical parts don't leap off a shelf and assemble into a car.

Well is that not what you think happened with biological organisms,things just arranged themselves in the proper sequencing.

 

[Youwerecreated]

what the fuck would you know about proper?
you cherry picked the post.
then made not funny been done joke..
the folks at rehab must love you.

Next time in english if you don't mind.

lnow that's funny.. you who have proven you cannot read or spell would ask that.
BTW it's perfect english, syntax, and punctuation. if you weren't illiterate you'd know that.

Ditto

 

[daws101]

How do you not understand this ?



I have a Masters in Biology (from a 5 year BS/MS program) and for the past 4 years I’ve been working as a lab manager/technician. I have my own research project(s) in addition to keeping track of ordering/equipment maintenance/mouse breeding/etc. All-in-all it’s a sweet gig and I could see myself doing this or something similar for most of my career. The problem is that there seems to be this culture in biology that one has to get a PhD, and my competitive side kind of feels the need to get one mostly just to show that I can. My practical side can’t figure out why it would be worth taking a pay cut for 5+ years of extra stress just to continue doing what I’m already doing. I have no desire to run my own lab, and have little desire to teach.

My very short answer: no.

If you are considering keeping your professional options open, then perhaps consider getting another master’s degree, either in a technical speciality, such as computational biology or statistics, or an MBA, which has some ‘credentialing’ value*.

The Ph.D. is not for that. As the reader correctly notes, a Ph.D. will be at least five years of more work and stress for less pay than a qualified lab tech. Actually, it will be more closer to ten years, and you might need to relocate a couple of times. It doesn’t sound like that’s what the reader wants to do.

To get a Ph.D. (in biology anyway), I think it requires four things:


1) A passion for biology. It has to go beyond ‘somewhat interesting.’

2) A willingness to spend a lot of time wanting to solve a particular problem.

3) A desire to live the ‘life of the mind’–you have to be really intellectually curious, and that curiosity has to be your lodestar.

4) This is the most important: you have to be willing to prioritize #1-3 above many other things, such as where you live, job stability, setting aside retirement income, and so on**. Worse, to capitalize on the Ph.D., at least in academia, you will have to keep prioritizing those things until you get tenure (business and non-profits can be a different matter).

I would also add that I’ve seen too many Ph.D.s who, upon graduating, are little more than glorified lab technicians. They haven’t been rigorously trained in any intellectual sense (they are supposed to be doctors of philosophy). Since the reader is already doing that (and enjoying it), why suffer through the Ph.D.? It definitely should not be the new B.Sc. or M.S.

*When it comes to the worth of an MBA (besides the networking, learning some basic lingo, and gaining a credential), I’m inclined to agree with Matthew Shaw’s argument in The Management Myth: an MBA is really just a poor philosophy degree (both the education and the philosophy are poor). If the world were organized according to the Mad Biologist, I would hire mathematically and statistically knowledgeable philosophy PhDs and MAs, not MBAs.

**To a considerable extent, a Ph.D. and post-doc retard one’s ability to become a ‘normal’ adult. Many parts of your life revolve around moving to the next stage, as opposed to actually living one’s life. There is little job stability, the pay sucks, you don’t know when you might move up, and you have to geographically relocate often. You really better love what you do, or find something else to do.


Noun
•S: (n) molecular biologist (a biologist who studies the structure and activity of macromolecules essential to life)

Definition for molecular biologist:
Web definitions:
a biologist who studies the structure and activity of macromolecules essential to life.

So what am I daws ? You are just spewing nonsense now daws as usual.

you forgot the link ...these are not your words
but to answer your question you're a poser playing at being a biologist. and failing.

I have seen that you wish not to debate me on the subject in your own words. Hell you can't even do it with your copying and pasting.

wrong as always what I see is you dodging the question. you forgot the link or intentionally left it out, thinking someone would believe it was you.
if you really could wright like that...it would be miracle!

 

[daws101]

Next time in english if you don't mind.

lnow that's funny.. you who have proven you cannot read or spell would ask that.
BTW it's perfect english, syntax, and punctuation. if you weren't illiterate you'd know that.

Ditto

you do realize that the word "ditto" means you agree?
more rock solid proof you're a dumbfuck.

Definition of DITTO
1: a thing mentioned previously or above —used to avoid repeating a word —often symbolized by inverted commas or apostrophes
might wanna use only words you know.

 

[Hollie]

All the components for super computers exist too but they don't spontaneously erupt. Neither do watches!

You been a basic understanding of biological organisms vs. non-biological for the preceding to help you understand.

Now would be a good time to toss in the stupendously stupid Christian creationist analogy that questions why mechanical parts don't leap off a shelf and assemble into a car.

Well is that not what you think happened with biological organisms,things just arranged themselves in the proper sequencing.

If you had any understanding of evolutionary theory, your simpleton comment would have been better structured.

Asserting "the gawds did if" places you in the position of having to explain their incompetence at designers.

 

[Youwerecreated]

The working of the cancer cell lead you to that? A wonder to behold.

Your "feelings" are inadequate as a means to an end for a gawd conclusion. The point is, your belief in a particular collection of gawds was simply happenstance; a function of your parentage and place of birth.

Your "feelings" based tenets regarding your gawds are completely unreliable in terms of offering the most basic of proofs. That is why the Christian creationist movement is intellectually bankrupt in terms of positive evidence for the gawds.

Do you realize what you are saying? Cancer cells are the result of copying errors or...wait for it... mutations!! Darwin is evil because he caused cancer.

So you are agreeing that mutations do occur? Why then, and on what grounds, can you preclude a positive mutation for a species if it is only a copying error if this copying error were to take place during meiosis? Explain the mechanism that might prevent this. If you can't, then you have no basis on which to doubt mutations being positive.

No one denies mutations happen what we deny is what vivid imaginations say they did.

What is your point on meiosis ? what are you suggesting parents cross bred with another species ?

You don't understand that most errors during DNA replication there are repair enzymes working to correct these errors ?

 

[Youwerecreated]

you forgot the link ...these are not your words
but to answer your question you're a poser playing at being a biologist. and failing.

I have seen that you wish not to debate me on the subject in your own words. Hell you can't even do it with your copying and pasting.

wrong as always what I see is you dodging the question. you forgot the link or intentionally left it out, thinking someone would believe it was you.
if you really could wright like that...it would be miracle!

Hey dummy, I never claimed those words were mine now if you go back and check the link you will find I did post that link earlier I guess you could have saved yourself some embarrassment if you would have read it the first time i posted it.

 

[Youwerecreated]

lnow that's funny.. you who have proven you cannot read or spell would ask that.
BTW it's perfect english, syntax, and punctuation. if you weren't illiterate you'd know that.

Ditto

you do realize that the word "ditto" means you agree?
more rock solid proof your a dumbfuck.

Definition of DITTO
1: a thing mentioned previously or above —used to avoid repeating a word —often symbolized by inverted commas or apostrophes
might wanna use only words you know.

Yeah he was being critical of me while he posted that you don't find that funny ?

 

[daws101]

I have seen that you wish not to debate me on the subject in your own words. Hell you can't even do it with your copying and pasting.

wrong as always what I see is you dodging the question. you forgot the link or intentionally left it out, thinking someone would believe it was you.
if you really could wright like that...it would be miracle!

Hey dummy, I never claimed those words were mine now if you go back and check the link you will find I did post that link earlier I guess you could have saved yourself some embarrassment if you would have read it the first time i posted it.

I did read it and posted the pertinent parts.
you've not proven anything except that you're a poser.

 

[newpolitics]

Do you realize what you are saying? Cancer cells are the result of copying errors or...wait for it... mutations!! Darwin is evil because he caused cancer.

So you are agreeing that mutations do occur? Why then, and on what grounds, can you preclude a positive mutation for a species if it is only a copying error if this copying error were to take place during meiosis? Explain the mechanism that might prevent this. If you can't, then you have no basis on which to doubt mutations being positive.

No one denies mutations happen what we deny is what vivid imaginations say they did.

What is your point on meiosis ? what are you suggesting parents cross bred with another species ?

You don't understand that most errors DNA replications there are repair enzymes working to correct these errors ?

No, I didn't know this, but I don't see how this matters, either. You have made the claim that beneficial mutations are impossible. However it is, that mutations occur, we know they occur. What I am asking if why you seem to think that only harmful mutations occur? This is a very convenient position to have for a creationist, and it is very suspect. There is no mechanism to discriminate against positive mutations. This much I know, because that would imply there was an evolved system that was designed to produce harmful mutations only. No life form with an interest in continuing life, would evolve this kind of system. Then again, you believe that virus' have a built-in self-destruct sequence.

 

[daws101]

Ditto

you do realize that the word "ditto" means you agree?
more rock solid proof your a dumbfuck.

Definition of DITTO
1: a thing mentioned previously or above —used to avoid repeating a word —often symbolized by inverted commas or apostrophes
might wanna use only words you know.

Yeah he was being critical of me while he posted that you don't find that funny ?

who is he? if you're not addressing me, who are you addressing?
must be that invisible friend you're always yammering about!

 

[Hollie]

Do you realize what you are saying? Cancer cells are the result of copying errors or...wait for it... mutations!! Darwin is evil because he caused cancer.

So you are agreeing that mutations do occur? Why then, and on what grounds, can you preclude a positive mutation for a species if it is only a copying error if this copying error were to take place during meiosis? Explain the mechanism that might prevent this. If you can't, then you have no basis on which to doubt mutations being positive.

No one denies mutations happen what we deny is what vivid imaginations say they did.

What is your point on meiosis ? what are you suggesting parents cross bred with another species ?

You don't understand that most errors DNA replications there are repair enzymes working to correct these errors ?

Shall the inclusive "we" in your first sentence define you as writing on behalf of the Christian creationist community?

Otherwise, what a remarkable admission that mutations occur. Did you clandestinely open a biology textbook? "We" wouldn't like that.

 

[Youwerecreated]

NP now is that something,enzymes being programmed to spot and repair errors,just one question remains. Who programmed those enzymes ?

 

[Youwerecreated]

wrong as always what I see is you dodging the question. you forgot the link or intentionally left it out, thinking someone would believe it was you.
if you really could wright like that...it would be miracle!

Hey dummy, I never claimed those words were mine now if you go back and check the link you will find I did post that link earlier I guess you could have saved yourself some embarrassment if you would have read it the first time i posted it.

I did read it and posted the pertinent parts.
you've not proven anything except that you're a poser.

Think what you like but we know the truth.

 

[Youwerecreated]

So you are agreeing that mutations do occur? Why then, and on what grounds, can you preclude a positive mutation for a species if it is only a copying error if this copying error were to take place during meiosis? Explain the mechanism that might prevent this. If you can't, then you have no basis on which to doubt mutations being positive.

No one denies mutations happen what we deny is what vivid imaginations say they did.

What is your point on meiosis ? what are you suggesting parents cross bred with another species ?

You don't understand that most errors DNA replications there are repair enzymes working to correct these errors ?

No, I didn't know this, but I don't see how this matters, either. You have made the claim that beneficial mutations are impossible. However it is, that mutations occur, we know they occur. What I am asking if why you seem to think that only harmful mutations occur? This is a very convenient position to have for a creationist, and it is very suspect. There is no mechanism to discriminate against positive mutations. This much I know, because that would imply there was an evolved system that was designed to produce harmful mutations only. No life form with an interest in continuing life, would evolve this kind of system. Then again, you believe that virus' have a built-in self-destruct sequence.

Whoa ,whoa, whoa, I said earlier when you asked me, I said they were to rare to be the engine to produce the diversity seen in nature.

 

[daws101]

An atheist is going to tell us what is or isn't a religion?


No bias there.

who the fuck is "us"
GUESS YOU'RE ILLITERATE TOO "American Atheists’ Teresa MacBain has something to say about whether or not Christianity is a religion:

I’m a former pastor, who served many churches for over 20 years. I would consider myself somewhat of an expert."

please explain how this person's knowledge of christianity becomes invalid just because they quit buying into the bullshit.
that's like saying because you're no longer a taxi driver, you've lost the ability to drive.
who's bias again?

What degree do you hold daws to be a pastor ?

I know where you're going with this, so I'll spare you the embarrassment of making an even larger anal aperture of yourself

Although degrees are very nice to have, God does not require an individual to have degrees to lead his church. However, God does have requirements. To lead God's church, one must first have accepted Christ as their personal saviour. One must be honourable and trustworthy, respected, not easily given to sin, have the ability to lead, be receptive to the leading of the Holy Spirit, be a good manager or Stewart of God's business, have goals and the additional requirements as emphasized in the Bible.

Now, some denominations may have degree requirements for their pastors. Some may require you to get formal theological training leading to the M.Div (Master of Divinity) or the M.Min (Master of Ministry) degree. There are also academic degrees leading to the Master of Systematic Theology or the Master of Sacred Theology. Some may require a Bachelor of Theology. If you belong to a denomination that holds such requirements, you may not be able to be a Pastor unless you have fulfilled this requirement. In any case, degree or no degree, the above requirements that meet the standards of holiness must be met.
What degree is required to be a Pastor of a church

I'd have answerd in my own words but you guys have a built in bias when it come to theological matters when us evil atheists provide them.