Lumi's Batshit Insane Thread

Creation-science author Ian Taylor

Click to expand...

There is no such thing as "Creation science" and "Creation science" authors aren't credible when it comes to scientific issues.

Lumie, can you name us one thing the "Discovery Institute", the leading "Creation Science" organization in America, has ever....discovered?

Charles Darwin published his controversial, Origin of the Species in 1859. Then, afterward, the scientific community went about trying to find evidence to support his assertions.

Click to expand...

You mean people tried to (and succeeded beyond even Darwin's wildest dreams)...confirm Darwin's hypothesis through testing?

SHOCK OF SHOCKS WHY SCIENCE WAS SO ABUSED.

Seriously, you're a mouth breathing moron of epic, almost astronomical proportions.

So anyway, Lumie.

I want you to address this question

Of course, if evolution wasn't real, then the only explanation Lumie has for all this, and so much more, like trisomy events (Down Syndrome, Klinefelter Syndrome, Fibrodysplasia Ossificans Progressiva, Cystic Fibrosis, etc.) is "Derp original sin". In the Creationist world view, all these phenomena have NO MECHANISTIC EXPLANATION, and NO HOPE FOR A CURE. Unless the magic wizard that supposedly created them takes mercy on us poor savages and blesses us by answering our prayers (lol).

Lumie, what would you advise as a cure for Fibrodysplasia Ossificans Progressiva?

Its an autosomal dominant mutation that results in soft tissues converting to osseous tissue after being damaged, leading to a horrible, slow, agonizing death for the very tiny sliver of the human population unfortunately afflicted with this malady? How do you even explain it, mechanistically?

Click to expand...

What is trisomy disorders? Autosomal dominant and recessive disorders? Cystic Fibrosis? Klinefelter Syndrome?

Evolutionary theory provides mechanistic explanations for how these diseases come about. Your world view's reason for their existence? "Degradation of genetics due to the Fall of Man and the Noachian Flood myth".

That's literally what Creationists think causes disease.

So you tell us, how do you explain genomic disorders mechanistically with your so called "Science" of Creationism.

Now let's talk about some actual dishonesty and shitting on the scientific method, like when Theists such as Lumie claim that "Were you there" or "Direct observation" are the only ways to do science.

Lumie, if that was true, we could never convict a single person of murder if the murder was not directly witnessed.

See, a forensic anthropologist gets called to a potential murder scene, often the remains are already completely decomposed already, the criminal who committed the act long gone. By your way of thinking, then, no "Evidence" recovered at the crime scene can be entered into a court of law since its "not evidence", evidence such as skeletal tissue that is examined for things like gun shot wounds/knife wounds, we examine these skeletal remains using the exact same methodology we use to examine fossil evidence, in many ways. Why is this methodology legitimate for forensics, which is dealing exclusively with criminal actions that occurred in the past, often without any extra witnesses to the crime existing, but yet suddenly its "Not science" when we're looking at dinosaur or pre homo sapien hominid fossils? Hmmm?

Let's talk about how Creation "Scientists" attempted to trick Dover School Board and the judge in the Kitzmiller v Dover school board issue into providing a known Creationist tract to the kids of that school by taking a word processing program and changing each instance of "Creation" to "Intelligent Design", for instance, or the fact that the Creationist who started the move to put Of Pandas and People into the Dover Classroom, stole a painting by a student that was in the high school in question, and burned it, simply because it demonstrated the classic human evolution motif of a simian gradually through several steps becoming man.

The textbook was developed during the 1980s, under the working title of "Creation Biology". It was commissioned by the Foundation for Thought and Ethics and intended to serve as a creationism-friendly textbook. Several drafts were produced in the 1980s under the titles Creation Biology Textbook Supplements, Biology and Creation and Biology and Origins.

The Edwards v. Aguillard court case in 1987 ruled that creationism was unsuitable for teaching in schools as science because of its religious basis, but that alternative scientific theories could be taught. To comply with the new standards, the old textbook was hastily rewritten and retitled Of Pandas and People. The new name was likely a reference Stephen Jay Gould's book, The Panda's Thumb,[1] a work which explains evolutionary theory in common, non-scientific prose. The new book was distributed as a "supplemental text" to any municipality that would take them. Among those who received them was Dover, Pennsylvania.

Of Pandas and People first entered the Dover school district via school board member Bill Buckingham and his friends at the Thomas More Law Center. After failing to get it fully integrated into the curriculum, the creationist board members simply left the books in the school library and required their science teachers to read a statement similar to the ones used in Kansas. This touched off the Kitzmiller v. Dover case, which ultimately ruled that intelligent design was an unscientific doctrine, unsuitable for public schools.

One of the most damning moments in the trial involved the use of a text-matching program to compare Of Pandas and People to the earlier editions. Sure enough, most of the book was identical to the earlier versions. The cosmetic difference was that all instances of "creator", "creationism" and "creation science" were replaced with "intelligent agent" and "intelligent design", leaving substantive content essentially unchanged. One copy of the book that surfaced during the case even contained the "missing link" between creationists and intelligent design proponents: the cdesign proponentsists.

Click to expand...

See, if you read what Lumie says, basically, all scientists, doctors, and anyone who dedicates their lives to expanding human knowledge through legitimate inquiry and a quest for the closest approximation to the truth we can reach, they're all evil. They are all seeking to profit off your misery, they promote cancer, fluoride in water, they want to put microchips in you and are all servants of evil reptilian sky lords who live on the Moon and in the center of the Earth (this is literally what Lumie believes, by the way).

Meanwhile all those priests that diddle kids, all those die hard right wingers trying to prevent gay marriage and equal rights, all those religious lunatics who want "America to be a Christian nation" and want to literally institude a theocratic government in this nation, they're all looking out foryourbest interests.

This is Lumie's worldview. Now how fucking stupid is that?

And yet the truth is that you're fucking crazy, and cancer isn't resolved my making your blood alkaline, that's a sure fire way to kill yourself.

the scientific method was created by a Creationist

Click to expand...

No, the scientific method was created by a person who lived during an era where even questioning religion was seen as a justification for persecution, and this is also a non sequitor and an argument from authority fallacy and irrelevant.

Also the claim that one singular person "Invented the scientific method" is just blather and nonsense, not even worth addressing besides saying "LOLOLOLOL"

Notice how you abjectly refuse to address serious questions, like

Of course, if evolution wasn't real, then the only explanation Lumie has for all this, and so much more, like trisomy events (Down Syndrome, Klinefelter Syndrome, Fibrodysplasia Ossificans Progressiva, Cystic Fibrosis, etc.) is "Derp original sin". In the Creationist world view, all these phenomena have NO MECHANISTIC EXPLANATION, and NO HOPE FOR A CURE. Unless the magic wizard that supposedly created them takes mercy on us poor savages and blesses us by answering our prayers (lol).

Lumie, what would you advise as a cure for Fibrodysplasia Ossificans Progressiva?

Its an autosomal dominant mutation that results in soft tissues converting to osseous tissue after being damaged, leading to a horrible, slow, agonizing death for the very tiny sliver of the human population unfortunately afflicted with this malady? How do you even explain it, mechanistically?
What is trisomy disorders? Autosomal dominant and recessive disorders? Cystic Fibrosis? Klinefelter Syndrome?

Evolutionary theory provides mechanistic explanations for how these diseases come about. Your world view's reason for their existence? "Degradation of genetics due to the Fall of Man and the Noachian Flood myth".

That's literally what Creationists think causes disease.

So you tell us, how do you explain genomic disorders mechanistically with your so called "Science" of Creationism.

Click to expand...

?

I did.

You're such a pathetic troll. You should have some answer for questions like these. Go on, check out Creation.org and CARM.org and AnswersInGenesis.org and come up with some rebuttal. I'll be waiting.

Notice how you never cite your sources?

Its because they are shitty sources.

Alkalosis is a deadly illness. This is a fact. I actually cited my sources confirming it.

Thanks for playing.

Otto Heinrich Warburg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Dead in 1970, and regardless, but it also misrepresents his hypothesis

Cancer hypothesis
In 1924, Warburg hypothesized that cancer, malignant growth, and tumor growth are caused by tumor cells mainly generating energy (as e.g. adenosine triphosphate / ATP) by nonoxidative breakdown of glucose (a process called glycolysis) and the subsequent recycling of the metabolite NADH back to its oxidized form, for reuse in the glycolytic cycle to complete the process (known as fermentation, or anaerobic respiration). This is in contrast to "healthy" cells, which mainly generate energy from oxidative breakdown of pyruvate. Pyruvate is an end product of glycolysis, and is oxidized within the mitochondria. Hence, and according to Warburg, cancer should be interpreted as a mitochondrial dysfunction.

Cancer, above all other diseases, has countless secondary causes. But, even for cancer, there is only one prime cause. Summarized in a few words, the prime cause of cancer is the replacement of the respiration of oxygen in normal body cells by a fermentation of sugar.

-Otto H. Warburg, [13]
Warburg continued to develop the hypothesis experimentally, and held several prominent lectures outlining the theory and the data.[14]

The concept that cancer cells switch to fermentation in lieu of aerobic respiration has become widely accepted, even if it is not seen as the cause of cancer. Also, logically, this leads to the prediction that many cancer patients may benefit from avoiding sugar. Some suggest the Warburg phenomenon could be used to develop anticancer drugs.[15] Meanwhile, cancer cell glycolysis is the basis of positron emission tomography (18-FDG PET), a medical imaging technology that relies on this phenomenon.[15][16]

Click to expand...

Nothing about making the body alkaline at all here.

Otto Heinrich Warburg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You just flail and flail and throw shit at the wall constantly hoping it'll stick and it never does. You're pathetic. Get a fucking life.

Try citing some science and scientists from the past 50 years sometime. That would require you to actually be up on modern science, and know what you're talking about though, so its no wonder Creationists are always 50 years plus behind the curve.

No, it was invented by Sir Francis Bacon you stupid fuck.

Click to expand...

No, Bacon is one of many people, going back to Aristotle and beyond, who helped invent the scientific method. The scientific method has been in development since the homo habilis picked up the first stone and attempted to shape it in his hands. That act of observation and experimentation to find a proper technique to tool shaping was the first instance of the use of the scientific method to improve the conditions of our species.

Just from Bacon's own time period, Descartes also contributed heavily to its development.

Notice how you are literally incapable of addressing any serious questions about biology made to you?

Notice how you keep avoiding this?

Of course, if evolution wasn't real, then the only explanation Lumie has for all this, and so much more, like trisomy events (Down Syndrome, Klinefelter Syndrome, Fibrodysplasia Ossificans Progressiva, Cystic Fibrosis, etc.) is "Derp original sin". In the Creationist world view, all these phenomena have NO MECHANISTIC EXPLANATION, and NO HOPE FOR A CURE. Unless the magic wizard that supposedly created them takes mercy on us poor savages and blesses us by answering our prayers (lol).

Lumie, what would you advise as a cure for Fibrodysplasia Ossificans Progressiva?

Its an autosomal dominant mutation that results in soft tissues converting to osseous tissue after being damaged, leading to a horrible, slow, agonizing death for the very tiny sliver of the human population unfortunately afflicted with this malady? How do you even explain it, mechanistically?
What is trisomy disorders? Autosomal dominant and recessive disorders? Cystic Fibrosis? Klinefelter Syndrome?

Evolutionary theory provides mechanistic explanations for how these diseases come about. Your world view's reason for their existence? "Degradation of genetics due to the Fall of Man and the Noachian Flood myth".

That's literally what Creationists think causes disease.

So you tell us, how do you explain genomic disorders mechanistically with your so called "Science" of Creationism.

Click to expand...

Its because you are a coward, a know nothing willfully ignorant construct. Nothing more. You have no depth. You aren't serious. You don't actually believe any of this shit, you know nothing about it, on a core, fundamental level.

What is the Hardy Weinberg Equilibrium Equation?

What is an SNP?

What is trisomy disorder? How is it caused, mechanistically? Can you answer ANY serious questions? The answer is resoundingly "No". Lumie, you are a shitty, shitty troll. There are better Creationist trolls on Youtube comments than you, people with better rebuttals for this information than you can or ever will hope to be. You are, in my opinion, utterly exposed as nothing more than a Poe at this point, because you are clinically incapable of taking this argument outside of your pathetic talking points about Newton and Bacon and Pasteur, because you are not even aware of the advances made in genetics and biology over the past half century, because you don't know what NADPH is, or ATP, or why any critical biological process occurs. You are a joke, is what I'm saying.