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
56,861 - 56,880 of 112,983 Comments Last updated 1 hr ago

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#60810
Nov 24, 2012
 
Poor Maz, she still needs to get into a shorter river.

News Flash for you Maz, no one has ever debunked the Theory of Evolution ever. And it is clear by your many errors in the past here that you are not qualified to talk about the specific details of genetics. So you can trumpet your "findings" as much as you like. Until you find someone who has at least some expertise, that is someone who has some real peer reviewed articles on the topic, that supports you I will not be impressed.

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Marrickville, Australia

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#60811
Nov 24, 2012
 
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Sorry, Maz, a little bit of an error on my part. No disrespect intended there.
I don't know what you are talking about, referring to my supposed inability to repost materials. If you have a question ask me.
But I can see by IDIOT's post that I did post about evidence here, so I will give you one more chance:
It can be demonstrated that all of the scientific evidence to date supports the theory of evolution and none supports creation. This is an indisputable fact. If you are honest you will admit it to be so, if not you will deny it.
By the way, I have not been "shoving junk DNA" down anyone's throat, nor have I ever seen an evolution proponent doing so. You still are miles from proving your claim that all DNA has a use. All that has been shown is that some noncoding DNA has a use, but it is more of a bookkeeper than anything else. I am definitely not a geneticist, but that might be what one would predict when a gene fell out of use due to evolution. Why don't you find one of them and badger them about "junk DNA". Here you have definitely not made your case. Convert a geneticist and we will say that you might have something. I seriously doubt if you can.
Give me one more chance to do what? Reply to this woffle. Here take a gander at this.

You say "It can be demonstrated that all of the scientific evidence to date supports the theory of evolution and none supports creation. This is an indisputable fact. If you are honest you will admit it to be so, if not you will deny it."

What the hell are you on about? You come across as so pathetically righteous and you actually start your argument with crap.

How does modern bird footprints dated to 212mya and stuck onto some mythical and undiscovered theropod support evolution better than creation?

How does sucking eggs of junk dna support evolution over creation when no junk fullfills a long lasting creationist prediction, where evos have none.

How do Michagan whales found in strata dated to 290mya that has been carbon dated and found to result in inconsistent dates leaving researchers to date puzzled as to how they got there, support evolution better than creation.

How does your evo researchers copying an already laid outline of what to expect in the fossil evidence according to Genesis support your being the first to even think of it.

By what stretch of the imagination do you propose that your changing the definition for vestigial organs into organs with a different function in response to the validation of creationist prediction, suport TOE over creationism.

How does the human/chimp Y comparison support evolution over creation when the difference is equivalent to 310 million years of separation akin to a chicken at a whopping 30% difference. This leading to more fabrications of acelerated genomic regions. How's that for fanciful thinking to explain a huge anomoly.

How does creationist algorithmic magic that supports no fusion of ape genes support evolution over creation?

How does flood geology support evolution?

I don't care if dna is a book keeper or not. It was evos that shoved junk dna as being evidence of the left overs from evolution with no function, that has slowly been falsified over time and confirmed creationist predictions, which TOE was unable to make.

Hence TOE has the predictive ability akin to a crystal ball.

So if this is your big, one more chance for me and your great arguement, you should not have bothered wasting my time. You have said nothing of substance and if I ignored such a post previously that would be why.

You again have offered your opinion based on an egotistical line of indisputeable facts that is nonsense.

Level 2

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#60812
Nov 24, 2012
 
anonymous wrote:
<quoted text>
It seems that you've decided that you've already got all the answers.
What are you questing for? The perfect lie?
Liars know themselves. You are a liar.
How can human beings evolved from worms or minute organisms?
Why are humans called apes, when there is a big dichotomy between them?
Great apes any way, is just a cover.

“Darwin was right..of course.”

Level 9

Since: Jun 11

Lagrangian L2

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#60813
Nov 24, 2012
 
Jim wrote:
<quoted text>
If your to dumb to understand what I say your to stupid to understand anyway so spellcheck wouldn't help your stupidity.
No, but it will help yours my friend.

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Marrickville, Australia

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#60814
Nov 24, 2012
 
Subduction Zone wrote:
Poor Maz, she still needs to get into a shorter river.
News Flash for you Maz, no one has ever debunked the Theory of Evolution ever. And it is clear by your many errors in the past here that you are not qualified to talk about the specific details of genetics. So you can trumpet your "findings" as much as you like. Until you find someone who has at least some expertise, that is someone who has some real peer reviewed articles on the topic, that supports you I will not be impressed.
Well if a one liner is all that is needed here from you evotards I can also provide one.

Good one lovey, if yiu can't win on science then revert to generalisyt woffle and take us back to post 1. Well done!

Here is a news flash. No one has ever falsified creationism either. Evos tried with both junk dna and vestegial organs and failed miserably, it seems, only to demonstrate indeed it is they that have no idea what they are talking about.

Level 2

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#60815
Nov 24, 2012
 
anonymous wrote:
<quoted text>
When I joined the military, they asked what faith I was. I entered Catholic as that is how I was raised. I haven't been to a church in 30 years and don't intend to start. Some things you do just because others want it.
Don't bother using those numbers. They're just something to put on a card, in case people get shipped home in a box.
Really?
But not in all cases.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#60816
Nov 24, 2012
 
Maz, we have already gone over this many times over. Those were not "bird" footprints, they were "bird-like footprints". You need quite a bit more evidence before you can even begin to claim they are "bird footprints". Meanwhile you continue to spew your crap while ignoring the fact that it has been determined that the Archaeopteryx which your side claimed was a modern bird because it had a reversed hallux and not a transitional species at all, did not have a reversed hallux after all. So what is it now?

Meanwhile you continue to spout your crap about genetics while at the same time linking articles that show you have no clue at all.

So, what is your evidence for creation? You have failed on your evidence against evolution. I want to see if you have anything positive that you can say about the fairy tale that you believe in.

Level 2

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#60817
Nov 24, 2012
 
NikkiShae wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't have to be.
Because you will never be.

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Marrickville, Australia

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#60818
Nov 24, 2012
 
David F Mayer wrote:
<quoted text>
That is the most perfect example of [i]non-sequitur[/i] that I have ever read. It is on the same level as:
"If the Earth were round, then elephants could fly."
Congrats. You have hit a new high in gross stupidity.
Take this for instance.. Earth at the centre of the universe and no need for the mystery of dark energy that is meant to account for 96% of the matter of the universe and you know nothing about.

To say that such an idea unnerves many modern cosmologists would be an understatement. Modern cosmology takes as an article of faith that the Earth is nothing special. It’s called the Copernican Principle, named after Copernicus who concluded that the Sun and not the Earth was the center of our solar system. In modern science, Earth and the area around it is not allowed to be special or “favored” in any way compared to the rest of space — and it is certainly not allowed to be the center of the universe.

But Temple & Smoller’s theory suggests just such a thought.

Their shockwave has some things in its favor and some not so much so. For the former, the Earth-centered shockwave theory would also explain another phenomenon: the fact that Earth seems to be sitting in an odd “bubble of underdensity”— a region of the universe that doesn’t have much in it.

http://wallacegsmith.wordpress.com/2010/10/22...

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#60819
Nov 24, 2012
 
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
Well if a one liner is all that is needed here from you evotards I can also provide one.
Good one lovey, if yiu can't win on science then revert to generalisyt woffle and take us back to post 1. Well done!
Here is a news flash. No one has ever falsified creationism either. Evos tried with both junk dna and vestegial organs and failed miserably, it seems, only to demonstrate indeed it is they that have no idea what they are talking about.
No, parts of creationism have been falsified in the past. Now creationists have learned at least this lesson, if you can't prove it don't make a theory or hypothesis that claims it.

You mentioned "flood geology" that is one aspect of creationism that has been thoroughly debunked. There is no flood geology since there is no sign of a worldwide flood. None at all. This is a case where lack of evidence is evidence against. There are many smaller local floods that we have left geologic evidence. If a small flood leaves evidence why won't a gigantic flood leave any evidence?

As a result of getting their asses thoroughly handed to them in the past creationists will not form testable hypotheses or theories. If you have no theories or hypotheses by definition you cannot have scientific evidence that support your claims.

Level 1

Since: Nov 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#60820
Nov 24, 2012
 
straa wrote:
<quoted text>
Wrong, there is nothing special about humans at all, I know you creotards have difficulty excepting that, because of your ego, first it was said that the earth is flat, then that the sun revolves around us, because we are so special, surely god would have everything revolve round us, right,, then when that was proven incorrect, you moved to we must be the only life with consiousness, and now that's not true, you creotards are saying earth is the only planet with life, and when that is disproven, what will you say then, you always have to think that you are special, that everything revolves around you, it is the thought process of a delusional mind with egomania, and an afflication all creotards suffer from it seems, they don't like the fact that we are just one species out of millions of others, and not special in any way, we are just a very small planet in a galaxy of trillions of planets, and that is just one galaxy of trillions of galaxies in the universe, which itself is just one of an infinite number of universes in the multiverse. Get this, there is nothing special about the human race, the fact that many other mammals, in particular, and certainly primates are proof enough of the non uniqueness of humans or conciousness, let your ego go, and embrace the truth, enlightenment will set you free
You're forgetting one thing, Those were human supposition, not that of the bible.
their is no proof of macro evolution
only evolution ot little or no change on small scale.

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Marrickville, Australia

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#60821
Nov 24, 2012
 
Subduction Zone wrote:
Maz, we have already gone over this many times over. Those were not "bird" footprints, they were "bird-like footprints". You need quite a bit more evidence before you can even begin to claim they are "bird footprints". Meanwhile you continue to spew your crap while ignoring the fact that it has been determined that the Archaeopteryx which your side claimed was a modern bird because it had a reversed hallux and not a transitional species at all, did not have a reversed hallux after all. So what is it now?
Meanwhile you continue to spout your crap about genetics while at the same time linking articles that show you have no clue at all.
So, what is your evidence for creation? You have failed on your evidence against evolution. I want to see if you have anything positive that you can say about the fairy tale that you believe in.
Oh the master of misrepresentation.

The article itself stated that the researchers chose not to use the term bird but use 'bird like' for no reason at all.

The footprints display a reversed hallux which has always been and continues to be one of the defining features of modern birds.

These idiots use such terminology because these loosers cannot have modern birds flying arounbd 212mya. It would destroy your current bird evolution paradigm and nested heirarchies, which BTW is a mess anyway.

So don't fluff off with me.

Modern birds footprints are also able to be exactluyu what they look like. This method always confused evolutionists who sem to need some complicated convolution behind everything to twist it into an evolutionary tale.

Would you like me to present the article again? I also have stored away pictures of the footprints and they are clearly modern bird footprints, except evos can't live with the facts.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#60822
Nov 24, 2012
 
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
Take this for instance.. Earth at the centre of the universe and no need for the mystery of dark energy that is meant to account for 96% of the matter of the universe and you know nothing about.
To say that such an idea unnerves many modern cosmologists would be an understatement. Modern cosmology takes as an article of faith that the Earth is nothing special. It’s called the Copernican Principle, named after Copernicus who concluded that the Sun and not the Earth was the center of our solar system. In modern science, Earth and the area around it is not allowed to be special or “favored” in any way compared to the rest of space — and it is certainly not allowed to be the center of the universe.
But Temple & Smoller’s theory suggests just such a thought.
Their shockwave has some things in its favor and some not so much so. For the former, the Earth-centered shockwave theory would also explain another phenomenon: the fact that Earth seems to be sitting in an odd “bubble of underdensity”— a region of the universe that doesn’t have much in it.
http://wallacegsmith.wordpress.com/2010/10/22...
Where the Earth is in the universe has nothing to do with the theory of evolution. Nor does dark energy. Why do you even bring it up here? I won't even bother with the paper, it could be true, it would be very interesting if it was. But that does not have one whit of impact on evolution in any way at all.

So why did you bring it up here Maz?

Level 1

Since: Nov 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#60823
Nov 24, 2012
 
Jim wrote:
There is records St. Nicholas existed but none of Jesus. There is proof of evalution but none of creation.
Their is proof, The romans spoke of Jesus as a teacher and healer.
Evolution is misleading, because evolution is possible but only on a small scale. Macro evolution is not possible.

Evolution should be called adapting.Animals only adapt they never change into a completely different species.
this is not pokemon.

I have a trantula, I've had her for a year. she knows when I open her tank, its either feeding or that want to pick her.
Did she change into another insects,No she is still a spider.

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Marrickville, Australia

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#60824
Nov 24, 2012
 
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
No, parts of creationism have been falsified in the past. Now creationists have learned at least this lesson, if you can't prove it don't make a theory or hypothesis that claims it.
You mentioned "flood geology" that is one aspect of creationism that has been thoroughly debunked. There is no flood geology since there is no sign of a worldwide flood. None at all. This is a case where lack of evidence is evidence against. There are many smaller local floods that we have left geologic evidence. If a small flood leaves evidence why won't a gigantic flood leave any evidence?
As a result of getting their asses thoroughly handed to them in the past creationists will not form testable hypotheses or theories. If you have no theories or hypotheses by definition you cannot have scientific evidence that support your claims.
Oh will you get back to defending your stupid chromosome 2 fusion?

Now that you have provided your big post we have all been waiting for you had best stick to ch2. You were doing better then.

If you can't deal with the science on the table now, we have no hope of getting anywhere around flood geology.

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Marrickville, Australia

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#60825
Nov 24, 2012
 
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Where the Earth is in the universe has nothing to do with the theory of evolution. Nor does dark energy. Why do you even bring it up here? I won't even bother with the paper, it could be true, it would be very interesting if it was. But that does not have one whit of impact on evolution in any way at all.
So why did you bring it up here Maz?
Because some idiot was paying out on a creationist trying to support the creation.
Looking for Answers

Pasadena, TX

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#60826
Nov 24, 2012
 
Not looking to pick a fight with any creationist or evolutionist out there but looking for answers.
There is a swell of information on basing scientific literature(evidence based medicine for medical literature) and grading the level of evidence to support claims from weak to strong.
Any out there has information on grading evolutionary evidence that can show me where i can find such an article?

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Marrickville, Australia

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#60827
Nov 24, 2012
 
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
Your one point Tim, does not refute the basis of my argument against the ch2 fusion.
There are heaps of points in the article above. Pick one and defend it with your own algorithmic magic and then with a straight face infer your woffle is better than the above.
You have already demonstrated you are fools with all your woffle around dna, clutching at the last 20% only to have that ripped out of your quivering hands.
I doubt there is any research from 10 years ago that remains valid today from this mess of yours.
What is hilarious is that you have failed on a multitude of supposed evo supports that have been unpacked into the speculative woffle they are.
Now you have ch2 fusion on the table and you are still unable to address anything I put to you.
Here is a bit,,
"The most startling outcome of this analysis is that the fusion site did not align with chimp chromosome 2A, one of the supposed pre-fusion precursors. Furthermore, the alignment at two locations on chromosome 2B, an internal euchromatic site and the telomere region of its long arm, did not match predicted fusion-based locations based on the fusion model. If the fusion model was credible, this should have produced an alignment with the telomeric region on chimpanzee 2B on the short arm."
How does this below gel with being the same?..
These regions are therefore major sites housing genes that have undergone human lineage-specific copy number increases and contain sequences that have dispersed in a human-specific fashion to novel regions of the genome, an example being the sequence f7501 that has a single copy in non-human primates and 7-11 copies in humans at subtelomeric locations on multiple chromosomes.
http://carta.anthropogeny.org/moca/topics/tel...
Indeed I suggest the fusion site is not the same as 2a and 2b fused at all. There are genes on the human fusion site that chimps do not have, there are copy number increases, duplications and sequences that have 'dispersed' and f7501 that has a single copy in non-human primates and 7-11 copies in humans at subtelomeric locations on multiple chromosomes.
Depending on where you look, one chromosome section may be longer or shorter than the match of the other species, because one species or another lost or gained some genetic code relative to the other. In this example, the human chromosome 2 is longer than chimp 2A+2B. In other chromosomes and locations, the chimp DNA&#65279; grew from repeated patterns and new genes, compared to humans, and vice versa also occurs.
In other words the site is not the same at all as chimp 2a and 2b fused. In fact evos suggest the genome has evolved in both lines since the common ancestor so nor should much of it be like chimps today. Evos have just found some algorithmic magic to wave away the difference in chromosome number and that is all. Without that surely TOE would be shot to pieces. Is that not the truth?
The other concern is that there aren't 2 populations of humans with 2 different chromosme counts around. If ch2 fused in the human line this becomes even a more ridiculous and non plausible arguement.
Come on you evos you have failed miserably. I just want to see how this forum does no this ch2 thing.

A common evo strategy is to get lost in one liners and asides.

You lot cannot defend any topic I have canvassed so far.

That does not mean TOE is not true. It does mean thatyou do not have substantive and credible evidence for it.

How about one of you bright sparks use your own algorithmic magic to overturn the above algorithmic magic.

I actually don't like any of it but there is only so much we can observe so I guess this type of magic is kind of required for the sake of knowledge of some sort.

No more asides and evo pollywoffling......

Do please demonstrate why your magic that suggests a fusion did occur is more valid than the above research that suggets it did not happen.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#60828
Nov 24, 2012
 
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh will you get back to defending your stupid chromosome 2 fusion?
Now that you have provided your big post we have all been waiting for you had best stick to ch2. You were doing better then.
If you can't deal with the science on the table now, we have no hope of getting anywhere around flood geology.
I already did. You are not an expert in this subject and neither am I. So far you have posted nothing that made the experts in this field to even blink. You made the claim, it was up to you to make it in the first place, you failed. You could not find anyone who new anything of the subject to support your claim.

And there is no such thing as flood geology. That bit the dust before Darwin even made the scene.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#60829
Nov 24, 2012
 
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
Because some idiot was paying out on a creationist trying to support the creation.
Can you try again in English this time?

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

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" 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.

•••
•••