Closing the thread and threatening to ban people does not make your argument correct.

[quote author=585D545057390]When you start with insults and lies, you open yourself to my attack. You are doing this to yourself. [/quote]

The only person doing any insulting or lying is you, GSFY.

[quote author=585D545057390]Carbon is not Diamonds, because it has been completely transformed into diamonds and is not edible by any bacteria. [/quote]

True, not all carbon is diamond... but all diamonds are carbon. The fact that diamond cannot be digested by bacteria (at least, none that we know of yet) has nothing at all to do with whether or not diamond is carbon.

[quote author=585D545057390]That is the facts. [/quote]

No, that's not the facts, no matter how much you want them to be. The fact is that diamond is a lattice structure of carbon atoms. No amount of threats or insults will change that fact.

You don't get to make up your own criteria for whether or not something is carbon and expect the world to accept them. You also don't get to make up your own definitions for random, evolution, or anything else - and since that's all you do here, that pretty much makes every post you make in this forum a superb example of "crybaby desperation".

If you want to disprove the Theory of Evolution, please feel free to try... but do so using real science, not your made up version of it. Be prepared to suggest an alternative explanation for the vast body of evidence - and make sure that explanation takes into account all of that evidence, not just select bits. If you manage to do this, you will get the attention you seem to crave.

Go for it.

Hey banhappy, what rule did I break this time? Oh yeah, I criticized you. So f**king what. Grow up and take it like a man.

GoodScienceForYou wrote on Feb 10^th, 2010 at 11:43pm:


Where is it written that bacteria can and will digest any carbon based matter? This is another belief you hold even though it is not absolutely proven.

GoodScienceForYou wrote on Feb 10^th, 2010 at 11:43pm:


No, I read it, I just don't agree with your conclusions. Either way, you've explicitly repeated the claim several times in this thread that diamonds are not carbon. Either way, that claim is wrong. Admit it, and let's move on.

GoodScienceForYou wrote on Feb 10^th, 2010 at 11:43pm:


Never tell lies? nonsense. You claim evolution is a religion. That is a lie. You claim that you believe only that which is absolutely proven. That's either a lie, or you're just wrong - your choice. You never mislead? nonsense. You claim that you are scientifically competent. You also claim that the rest of the world is scientifically incompetent. You also make up your own definitions - a big mislead.

I'm sure you'll ban me again for this post, but I don't really give a garbage. Nothing I say, or anyone else says, will ever penetrate that wall you've constructed between yourself and observable reality.

GoodScienceForYou wrote on Feb 11^th, 2010 at 10:23am:


I concede that all bacteria require carbon for survival - however, not all bacteria consume organic carbon. Iron-oxidizing bacteria, for example, require inorganic carbon, e.g. carbon dioxide.

This is not the same, however, as saying that all carbon can be digested by bacteria! This is a false conclusion that is unsupported by the evidence!

GoodScienceForYou wrote on Feb 11^th, 2010 at 10:23am:


False. Prior to the development of nylonase, there were no bacteria that could digest nylon, therefore the process of making nylon does not convert the nylon to an edible food for bacteria.

GoodScienceForYou wrote on Feb 11^th, 2010 at 10:23am:


This is a ridiculous statement. The fact that different strains of bacteria exist in different environments - for example, iron-oxidizing bacteria thrive in iron-rich environments but cannot survive in sulfur-rich environments, and bacteria that thrive in our guts cannot survive in iron-rich environments. The development of these different strains is evolution!

GoodScienceForYou wrote on Feb 11^th, 2010 at 10:23am:


This is a straw man argument. First of all, no individual creature ever evolves into a new creature. Secondly, "new creature" is so poorly defined that it can be argued against in at least two different ways: if we interpret it loosly, the theory of evolution does not predict such transitions, it only predicts divergence in a family of organisms; and if we interpret it strictly, every creature is itself a new creature, as it is genetically unique, and thus distinct from all other creatures.

GoodScienceForYou wrote on Feb 11^th, 2010 at 10:23am:


So what? What does this have to do with evolution or our discussion about diamonds and carbon? You're dodging the issue...

GoodScienceForYou wrote on Feb 11^th, 2010 at 10:23am:


Really? That's what your claim has always been? Let's go back and look:

Quote:


Quote:


Quote:


Nothing about diamond being edible in any of those... here's the only post I could find where you mentioned diamond not being edible, and it came after your previous posts had been thoroughly destroyed - almost as though you're changing your argument just to claim a win:

Quote:


Now, we don't know of any bacteria that digest diamond, but that doesn't mean that it's impossible, and that it won't eventually be discovered.  Either way, nothing changes the fact that diamond is composed of carbon atoms, and nothing else.

GoodScienceForYou wrote on Feb 11^th, 2010 at 10:23am:


No, it's not, you just think it is. It's your opinion.

GoodScienceForYou wrote on Feb 11^th, 2010 at 10:23am:


Those "slogans" are simplifications of much more complicated concepts, created to assist the public in understanding these concepts. Because they are oversimplified, I'm sure arguments can be made against them... but those arguments would only discredit the simplification, and not the base concept. For example, we've already addressed the "random" issue as being a simplification where if you explore the base concept there is no error or contradiction. "Evolutionary pressure" is an oversimplification of the concept of genetic shift by means of natural selection - and that statement, too, is an oversimplification of a more complex concept.

Evodelusionists say that science has evolved and now they no longer believe that. So, now they believe other nonsense, and those idiots have destroyed foundational scientific terms words, manipulated foundational concepts of the real scientific method of testing testing testing and evaluation of the test results.

This crap doesn't even resemble anything else in real science in which we test things to see if it repeats over and over and over. This is the real scientific method. 

You can't test anything about this fantasy theory of evodelusionism.

It is all a bunch of religious slogans that have no basis in reality.

MajorAtheist wrote on Feb 14^th, 2010 at 6:42am:


I told you that "my" God is the Truth.   I only seek to find the truth. That means I have learned to stay clear of delusional religious nonsense.

If you don't understand that on everything that IS, there is an absolute truth about it. 
If a fly drops a turd on your computer screen, there is only one way that took place in objective reality.

If you were not there to see how this happened, you will not ever find the truth on how it happened.

When people project fantasy and ideas about how this crap got on your computer screen, they are delusional.

They think they can project their beliefs on how this happened onto the "evidence". But one thing is for sure those beliefs are ALWAYS WRONG.

If I have no clue how the garbage got on my screen or even what type of garbage it is, then it is ridiculous for me to project my beliefs on the "evidence".

Do you understand anything?

RealScienceForMe wrote on Feb 14^th, 2010 at 1:02pm:



Why are you here?  You are wasting my time.

RealScienceForMe wrote on Feb 14^th, 2010 at 4:05pm:



You have a religious belief in random.  Most religious beliefs are caused by ignorance.  Because your mind is to weak to understand cause and effect, does not allow you to impose religious beliefs on science.

Where did you learn such nonsense?

GoodScienceForYou wrote on Feb 15^th, 2010 at 10:28am:



Sadly, that's exactly what a GOD is............religious belief. But the people that are too scared to be honest, will NEVER be able  to admit this.

And that is the truth unless you can prove me wrong.  I will sit back and see if you even attempt to address what I say or will you just continue to RUN from it.................just so you can promote your lying agenda?