Evolution vs. Creation

Full story: Best of New Orleans

High school senior Zack Kopplin is leading the fight to repeal the Louisiana Science Education Act of 2008.
Comments
56,401 - 56,420 of 114,588 Comments Last updated 18 min ago
anonymous

Franklin, PA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#60365
Nov 23, 2012
 
FREE SERVANT wrote:
Agate stones are said to be from 200 to 400 million years old according to scientist. These stones have been found in Kentucky that have distinct pictures of native American Indians after they were cut in half. The Creator of the earth foreknew about the Indians. I personally think scientist have their timelines wrong.
OK, that isn't too clear on any level. Are you suggesting that humanity is 200 to 400 million years old? What was cut in half? Stones or Indians? Either way, what is implied by cutting things in half? Are you implying that God "knew" about Indians but was not directly involved in their creation? WTF?
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#60366
Nov 23, 2012
 
MazHere wrote:
Oh and you would know for sure on the back of a big bang model where physics breaks down at the singularity. On the back of a model that suggests 96% of the universe is dark energy, a substance they know nothing about except it makes their physics less problematic.
Except when calculations are made against observable astronomical phenomena under the Dark Matter hypothesis they prove to be correct. They are in the correct positions. No other model (such as modified gravity) can do this so far.
MazHere wrote:
How about this theory that you all like to ignore. This will never take off because it actually makes sense and does not require the mystery of dark matter and energy.
It's an apologetics bastardization of relativity, and ignores the fact that it would work with ANY other space body being the center of the universe. Oh, except the Bible sez the Earth is important therefore it's GOTTA be Earth in the middle! How's that GODMAGIC theory coming along? Still zip?
MazHere wrote:
Hence one can believe in a theory that breaks down and makes the earth not special or one can choose another equally credible theory.
BTW, I also can present research that suggest intergalactic shadows are missing causing challenges to the validity of big bang.
While at the same time ignoring positive predictions like the prediction of background radiation levels to 1 part in 300,000. Theory may not be perfect but you only got magic as an alternative.
MazHere wrote:
The one thing that supports a biblical Gods ability to create instantly is that there is now research that proves energy can turn to matter.
Of course it can. Matter IS energy.
MazHere wrote:
What is God described as? Energy and light. What is the primary matter of the universe according to researchers...energy contained within a singularity the physics of which also breaks down at that instant of creation. So here again is support for yet another biblical assertion and a creationist view that the primary matter of the universe will be made from the substance of God. Done!
Except you have no mechanism or scientifically verifiable source. Hence semantic word-games are used to claim physics supports invisible Jewmagic.

So precisely what type of energy is God made of?
MazHere wrote:
The statement that a source of power can create matter has been established. That is suportive data on creos behalf
That view is as good if not better than anything you can provide, despite big bangs general acceptance.
Translation - "The existence of the universe supports Godmagic because the Bible sez God created the universe!"

Well done.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#60368
Nov 23, 2012
 
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
No serious takers only those wanting to philosophise.
Great! That means I win.
My winning means evos cannot defend their theory, or at least the ones on this forum certainly can't.
Of course I can. You haven't falsified it yet. You haven't addressed it yet. I admit I can't beat invisible Jewmagic, but then non-falsifiable non-scientific concepts such as that can easily be dismissed.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#60369
Nov 23, 2012
 
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
Religion is dying because most religions do not adhere to the teachings in their spiritual texts. You've got Catholics bowing down to idols, Islamic extremists and uncivilized faiths populating like rabbits, and other that don't believe in a biblical God but uphold some unsubstantiated dribble of their own.
Look at this article. I have sourced a refute for you lot seeing as none of you are able to supply anything of substance for yourselves.
http://thenaturalhistorian.com/2012/11/03/the...
I refute you by claiming that evidence of people leaving religion does not inform the creation/evolution debate at all. You are evading strong and robust discussions I speak to in an attempt to evade the thread topic. On a properly moderated forum your posts would likely have been deleted.
This boof in the refute to my assertion above is trying to refute accumulating evidence that researchers and scientists are flocking to the various forms of creationism in droves.
Note this fool basing his entire refute on the basis of amounts of published articles, as if the publication watch dogs allow creationist research past their gates. It is only puiblished when disgiused as based on evo paradigms.
Indeed I assert that researchers are flocking to creationist models in droves. John Sanford is just one of them.
So what you're saying is that you can't get invisible Jewmagic published in the scientific arena because of the evil atheist world-wide evolutionist conspiracy, so you're publishing it yourselves, peer-reviewing it yourselves, and pretending it's relevant to science. Got it.

Oh, and you're still contradicting yourself and still wiping out all life on Earth multiple times over, still relying on reality-denying YEC's who also contradict themselves, still pretending that negative arguments against evolution automatically count as positive evidence for creationism, and still fixing any and all problems with invisible Jewmagic.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#60370
Nov 23, 2012
 
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
If you are refering to me, it is you that have proven to be dim becuase you have not addressed me with substantive research to refute me. Nor have you explained how anything I assert is not as equally a good interpretation of the data as any these researchers have come up with.
All your woffle around junk dna, vestigial organs; Over 4 billion years of accumulative beneficial mutation that are overwhelmingly negative and restrictive which is great evidence for creation dismissed by the mere wave of the hand and any old ridiculous scenarion any delusional mind can come up with will do!
You can do no more than ridicule me and that makes me extremely happy because you have provided evidence of your own ignorance.
We can not only ridicule you but also point out your dishonesty and where your assertions go wrong. That's including claiming negative arguments as "positive evidence". And what the heck do you mean 4 billion years anyway?!? There's no such thing as 4 billion years!

Oh wait - you're a hypocrite.(shrug)

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Everton, Australia

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#60371
Nov 23, 2012
 
anonymous wrote:
<quoted text>
That might be a bit overly condemning of Christianity. The early Christians were a bit zealous but they did have quite a humanistic ideology once you released yourself from the trappings of aristocracy and organized demagoguery.
I can't say that any Christians currently embrace that but I'll listen.
The basis for the NT is to forgive, turn the other cheek and pray for your enemies. It is hard to be perfect. The OT condemns killing for any other reason than is directly controlled by God. Anything more than this comes from the reasonings of man that are often peddled as scripture. Many scriptures warn of this.

That is why I do not adhere to any particular faith and simply call myself a Christian with a preference for creationist predictive capability.

The Crusades and all the examples of Christendom at its worst does not negate the concept of the peace that the NT and Christianity are meant to reflect.

The bible, including the NT, is the only spiritual text where the composers did not take glory for themselves and did not live in shameless luxury as a result of profits from their teachings. That is almost a miracle! For me this puts the bible and the NT above and beyond any other spiritual text.

Of course this has little to do with the evolution/creation debate. However, I think I can give up on evos coming up with anything better than what I and others can present as creationists. The point is the supposed evidence for TOE is not that crash hot after all. TOE is supported by whatever flavour of the month is on offer.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#60372
Nov 23, 2012
 
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
Listen here to me you are woffling agian.
What is it that you do not understand about this.
These data support models in which negative epistasis contributes to declining rates of adaptation over time. Sign epistasis was rare in this genome-wide study, in contrast to its prevalence in an earlier study of mutations in a single gene.
It is self explanatary. Then you go on with some woffle about many that has absolutley nothing to do with the research.
Do you understand it all?
Yup. Which is why you still haven't been able to address the logical consequences of Sanford's arguments. And you STILL focus on anti-evolution apologetics while ignoring your own internal inconsistencies.
FREE SERVANT

Bellevue, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#60373
Nov 23, 2012
 
anonymous wrote:
<quoted text>
OK, that isn't too clear on any level. Are you suggesting that humanity is 200 to 400 million years old? What was cut in half? Stones or Indians? Either way, what is implied by cutting things in half? Are you implying that God "knew" about Indians but was not directly involved in their creation? WTF?
Let me clarify! Agate stones are cut and polished. The KY agates that have vivid mineral colors sometimes are found to have distinct pictures in them. Examples have been found with birds and other nature scenes as well as humans that are clearly Indians.
Portal

Naperville, IL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#60374
Nov 23, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Gets Pkr wrote:
<quoted text>
And the socialist gospel proclaims that once upon a time a lightning bolt struck a possible ammoniated methane pool, generated stray amino acids which possibly hooked up in a manner which allowed it feed, digest and reproduce itself. Sorry progressive genius, I just can't buy swamp land in southern Arizona, but you obviously have that "kind of blind faith" for such an investment.
No,Big G open your gray matter. Humans make up theories to mislead and confuse the clueless. Creationism and evolution are just two examples.......there is another option but, apparently being human has a mind block thrown up....for most humans. The others that can think and reason....don't care for the "Norm" in the theory misinformation data. The cosmos has all the answers.....religion is a block, evolution are a block...now, my position should be clear Big G. Its pointless, the human being will be extinct before they understand.
FREE SERVANT

Bellevue, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#60375
Nov 23, 2012
 
ToManyLaws wrote:
<quoted text>
I knew what you meant. I have read the total LIE BS story also. That whole deal has been disproven as a fake. But you do liek to believe in made up BS dont you.
Please stop supporting lies and get with the real world! This is not fake, I have seen them.
anonymous

Franklin, PA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#60376
Nov 23, 2012
 
FREE SERVANT wrote:
<quoted text>Let me clarify! Agate stones are cut and polished. The KY agates that have vivid mineral colors sometimes are found to have distinct pictures in them. Examples have been found with birds and other nature scenes as well as humans that are clearly Indians.
...and the point is?

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Everton, Australia

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#60377
Nov 23, 2012
 
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
And they are easy to find on this thread.(shrug)
<quoted text>
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed...
329724 current papers on evolution. You may find the occasional IDCreationist one, but you won't be fond of their conclusions. Which of my claims do you think are NOT supported by research? Oh wait - that's why you haven't addressed them yet. Only misrepresented evolutionary biologists instead.
Remember you can't claim unreliable evolutionary biologists prove unreliable evolution wrong with unreliable evolutionary biology. That's intellectual dishonesty to the core.
And then you take one mighty leap further and claim GODDIDIT WITH MAGIC!
<quoted text>
Like I said, you haven't even gotten around to the rest yet. But the fact we share nearly 200,000 of these with the other great apes is a start.
I have already won because you have not offered anything of substance around junk dna. You keep saying you have but can't requote anything. Therefore I win the point that evos can make no predictions around junk dna, creos can, and creos have mounting evidence to support same while evos are left to pick up the pices and invent a brand new story.

You have not gone anywhere near the above in addressing my claims. These points above are substantiated at present by the current flavour if the month provided by your own evo researchers.

Similarly any and every support for TOE can be found to be equally flawed and based on biased and circular magic.

As for Gods ability to create I have spoken to it by stating that there is evidence that energy can be turned into matter. This is a fact. Here is the assumption and hypothesis....If energy can turn matter into a sun or planet then energy can create an organism much smaller that is made up entirely of the elements of the earth.

Now you can talk about your version of abiogenesis that evos separate from TOE out of shame. Your many theories and lack of ability to make a living reproductive organism in a controlled environment is not better than anything I can come up with. You just have more woffle and history in your guesswork and libraries of outdated work that goes from ponds to ocean springs.

Again you refer to some refute that is ficticious. Post your research around these 200 shared ervs and stop being lazy. Or do I have to post it for you?

So ervs were meant to be functionless remnants of infections past were they? Now they appear to be proving to be vital in some instances.eg mammalian pregnancy.

So which supports TOE functionless ervs or functional ervs?

Or doesn't it matter?

All ERVs in humans are extinct retroviruses. The viruses in your genome right now have no homologues in our population that infect modern humans. The only two retroviruses that are real ‘normal’ human pathogens are HIV and HTLV. HIV is a lentivirus– there are very, very few endogenous lentiviruses (found one in bunbuns, another in lemurs). HTLV is a deltaretrovirus– I am not aware of any endogenous deltaretroviruses.

Our ERVs are only distantly related to exogenous viruses that infect other organisms. That is, MLV is a gammaretrovirus, but our Class I retroviruses (related to gamma and epsilonretroviruses) are not literally MLV. Likewise, our Class II (related to alphas and betas) are not literally ALV or MMTV.

So to put it a different way, our youngest ERVs, HERV-Ks, are as similar to HIV-1, a modern infectious virus, as humans are to Methanobacterium thermoautotrophicum.

In other words, researchers have assumed via their algorithmic magic that these ghosts called ervs may resemble some virus that once was that they actually have not seen and really have no idea about. How comvincing! Not!
FREE SERVANT

Bellevue, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#60378
Nov 23, 2012
 
anonymous wrote:
<quoted text>
...and the point is?
The Creator of the earth foreknew about birds and Indians.

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Everton, Australia

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#60379
Nov 23, 2012
 
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
So what you're saying is that you can't get invisible Jewmagic published in the scientific arena because of the evil atheist world-wide evolutionist conspiracy, so you're publishing it yourselves, peer-reviewing it yourselves, and pretending it's relevant to science. Got it.
Oh, and you're still contradicting yourself and still wiping out all life on Earth multiple times over, still relying on reality-denying YEC's who also contradict themselves, still pretending that negative arguments against evolution automatically count as positive evidence for creationism, and still fixing any and all problems with invisible Jewmagic.
I am not a jew but you certainly are a boofhead.

Answer some with some science and stop with your evasion. It is seriously obvious now.

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#60380
Nov 23, 2012
 
FREE SERVANT wrote:
<quoted text>The Creator of the earth foreknew about birds and Indians.
You are really crazy. I suppose clouds know about trees, buildings, dogs, and cats.
anonymous

Franklin, PA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#60381
Nov 23, 2012
 
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
The basis for the NT is to forgive, turn the other cheek and pray for your enemies. It is hard to be perfect. The OT condemns killing for any other reason than is directly controlled by God. Anything more than this comes from the reasonings of man that are often peddled as scripture. Many scriptures warn of this.
That is why I do not adhere to any particular faith and simply call myself a Christian with a preference for creationist predictive capability.
The Crusades and all the examples of Christendom at its worst does not negate the concept of the peace that the NT and Christianity are meant to reflect.
The bible, including the NT, is the only spiritual text where the composers did not take glory for themselves and did not live in shameless luxury as a result of profits from their teachings. That is almost a miracle! For me this puts the bible and the NT above and beyond any other spiritual text.
Of course this has little to do with the evolution/creation debate. However, I think I can give up on evos coming up with anything better than what I and others can present as creationists. The point is the supposed evidence for TOE is not that crash hot after all. TOE is supported by whatever flavour of the month is on offer.
And yet, you're defending literal interpretations of the Old Testament. I just consider this something that independent Christians have to work out. Do you take instructions from the Church or your own understanding of the New Testament? Most creationist seem to think they are more qualified than the Church but I've rarely seen any complexity to their arguments.

Generally, I consider the New Testament a set of parables on rebellion against an overwhelming master, such as the Romans. Not all of its stories are consistent with the others. It has mutated over time to become an evangelical tool of conquering states.

The Old Testament is a rigid set of rules by which the religious and state aristocracies can override popular culture as they see fit. The status quo will take care of the malcontents.

Both segments of Judeo/Christian culture require a garbage can where they can dispose of conflicts deemed too trivial for the orthodoxy to address. That's bang-on where you'll find the wedge issues of political debate. Religion matters! Logic doesn't mean jack! As much as I'd like to do the right thing, I feel obligated to deny gay marriage AND right to life agendas because they aren't about doing the right thing, and endorsing either will just escalate the game to the next level.

Sorry. There isn't and won't be a scrap of faith in any point I make here.

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Everton, Australia

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#60382
Nov 23, 2012
 
FREE SERVANT wrote:
<quoted text>The Creator of the earth foreknew about birds and Indians.
Yes and there is evidence that indeed birds were created and did not evolve.

Look at this.....

Nonetheless, Melchor cautiously avoids saying birds made the prints. "These bird-like footprints can only be attributed to an unknown group of theropods showing some avian characteristics," he writes in the journal Nature.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn2466-an...

So here researchers have found modern bird fottprints that display a reversed hallux. A reversed hallux has always been the signature feature of a MODERN BIRD.

Now these researchers are trying to attribute them to an unknown theropod because it suits them, and convergent evolution is the buzz excuse these days, and one is trying to resurrect protoavis that has been crushed by the scientific community. Well done evos!

There are plenty of evo researchers that do not accept the dino to bird line anyway.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/02/...
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/07/...

How about a novel idea for once!! Maybe they are exactly what they appear to be. That would be evidence of modern birds thriving 212 million years ago and more than half way to the devonian where they are meant to have been created after the creatures of the sea.

The above interpretation of the bird footprint data does not support current evolutionary theory in relation to bird evolution. However this data can be seen as being supportive of a creationist paradigm.

Given that the fossilization of small and hollow boned birds is a rare event, this is an excellent find in support of creation and a headache for evolutionists!

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Everton, Australia

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#60383
Nov 23, 2012
 
anonymous wrote:
<quoted text>
And yet, you're defending literal interpretations of the Old Testament. I just consider this something that independent Christians have to work out. Do you take instructions from the Church or your own understanding of the New Testament? Most creationist seem to think they are more qualified than the Church but I've rarely seen any complexity to their arguments.
Generally, I consider the New Testament a set of parables on rebellion against an overwhelming master, such as the Romans. Not all of its stories are consistent with the others. It has mutated over time to become an evangelical tool of conquering states.
The Old Testament is a rigid set of rules by which the religious and state aristocracies can override popular culture as they see fit. The status quo will take care of the malcontents.
Both segments of Judeo/Christian culture require a garbage can where they can dispose of conflicts deemed too trivial for the orthodoxy to address. That's bang-on where you'll find the wedge issues of political debate. Religion matters! Logic doesn't mean jack! As much as I'd like to do the right thing, I feel obligated to deny gay marriage AND right to life agendas because they aren't about doing the right thing, and endorsing either will just escalate the game to the next level.
Sorry. There isn't and won't be a scrap of faith in any point I make here.
Now he's wofling on about gay marriage, OMG you are a looser.
May God have mercy on you and get you to heaven despite it.

I will simply keep reposting my post until you or some evo comes up with some appropriate reply or find one of these mysterious past replies that you have invented out of that poor little forgetful and hopeful mind of yours.
FREE SERVANT

Bellevue, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#60384
Nov 23, 2012
 
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>You are really crazy. I suppose clouds know about trees, buildings, dogs, and cats.
I'm telling you the truth. Jesus said men would hate me for the truths sake, it doen't scare me.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#60385
Nov 23, 2012
 
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes and there is evidence that indeed birds were created and did not evolve.
Look at this.....
Nonetheless, Melchor cautiously avoids saying birds made the prints. "These bird-like footprints can only be attributed to an unknown group of theropods showing some avian characteristics," he writes in the journal Nature.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn2466-an...
So here researchers have found modern bird fottprints that display a reversed hallux. A reversed hallux has always been the signature feature of a MODERN BIRD.
Now these researchers are trying to attribute them to an unknown theropod because it suits them, and convergent evolution is the buzz excuse these days, and one is trying to resurrect protoavis that has been crushed by the scientific community. Well done evos!
There are plenty of evo researchers that do not accept the dino to bird line anyway.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/02/...
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/07/...
How about a novel idea for once!! Maybe they are exactly what they appear to be. That would be evidence of modern birds thriving 212 million years ago and more than half way to the devonian where they are meant to have been created after the creatures of the sea.
The above interpretation of the bird footprint data does not support current evolutionary theory in relation to bird evolution. However this data can be seen as being supportive of a creationist paradigm.
Given that the fossilization of small and hollow boned birds is a rare event, this is an excellent find in support of creation and a headache for evolutionists!
Hardly. Yes, the modern bird has a reverse hallux, big whoop. Archaeopteryx did not have a reversed hallux, so it seems you are saying it is not a modern bird but some sort of transitional animal, I agree.

And it there were a several species of dinosaurs that chiefly lived in trees but did not fly it still would not be unreasonable for them to develop a reversed hallux. That simple sort of evolution can happen several times over.

And you still have not posted anything that would give an evolutionary scientist any pause at all.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

•••