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 (Page 2,900)

Showing posts 57,981 - 58,000 of106,039
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:

Since: Sep 12

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#61969
Nov 30, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Elohim wrote:
<quoted text>Science has nothing to do with any gods, goddess or deities.
GREAT!! Now answer the question.

Since: Sep 12

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#61970
Nov 30, 2012
 
NikkiShae wrote:
<quoted text>Why if God can create everything in 6 days does it take nine months to develop a new baby?
I don't know how could I
Know that?

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#61971
Nov 30, 2012
 
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
I am glad you are gobsmacked and the best you can do is try to get me to spell woffle the way you would like. I am not refering to food. I am refering to my version of the manin gof woffle meaning unsupported rhetoric and hubris.
That was all these evos had to say to this post. How simple you all really are.
"Ignorance is not a good look Subby and Dan.
Here!!! I'll spoon feed you 2 a bed time story seeing as you can't find any evo evidence to support yourself with, Oh intelligencia!
Your evo researchers are suggesting that the Y chromosome will rot. It is deteriorating and is going to disappear. All the data suggest this.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/07/ ...
Here is bright spark that thinks he has found the answer to save you blokes.
Listen to this...
"Before they became specialized sex chromosomes, the X and Y were once an ordinary, identical pair of autosomes like the other 22 pairs of chromosomes humans carry. To maintain genetic diversity and eliminate potentially harmful mutations, autosome pairs swap genes with each other in a process referred to as "crossing over."
Roughly 300 million years ago, a segment of the X stopped crossing over with the Y, causing rapid genetic decay on the Y. Over the next hundreds of millions of years, four more segments, or strata, of the X ceased crossing over with the Y. The resulting gene loss on the Y was so extensive that today, the human Y retains only 19 of the more than 600 genes it once shared with its ancestral autosomal partner."
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/02/ ...
None of the above sites are creationist in case some fool can't tell the difference.
Above is an example of an evo scratching around, ad nauseum, trying his darndest to keep his grant money by inventing some ridiculous scenario, he could not possibly know. He has saved you with twoddle about what he reckons happened 300 million years ago. He suggests that twoddle falsifies the many research articles that say the Y chromosome will one day disappear.
What do you lot reckon? Let me guess, you have to look your opinion up!
All the research suggests the genome is deteriorating. This again supports Sanford and creationism by suggesting life could not have been evolving for billions of years. Then evos have to run off with this data and rescussitate their theory by basically refuting their own initial data with any ridiculous bed time story any imaginative researcher can think up.
You evos handed us evidence in a silver platter to validate our predictions after all your quacking about junk dna and vestigial organs. You still like to quack about how great you all are. You're still wiping the egg off your faces from over 150 years of human knuckle walking ancestry, and now negative epistasis and genome deterioration.
I love it.
If this is what you evos are so proud of, you are welcome to it.
The fact is that these silly evo researchers keep on supporting creationism with their initial data at almost every turn and then have to scurry off and invent a silly story to offer up to save TOE from flopping.
Creationism is supported by data.
TOE is supported by hypothetical woffle.
I rest my case!"
Subduction Zone and Dan have been shown to be the empty vessels of pretense that actually are.

Wow. What a bunch of woffle. It is rare to see someone wrote so much and yet say so little.

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#61972
Nov 30, 2012
 
Bat Foy wrote:
<quoted text>All evidence of Gods justice I believe I have said before I do not always agree with what God does but I don't have to he doesn't ask my opinion. David sinned and was punished. The child went to God and David repented.
Ever wandered why god(s), cars and ships always have gender?

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#61973
Nov 30, 2012
 
MazHere wrote:
4. Beneficial mutations have an overwhelmingly negative effect due to epistasis. All the recent data supports this. Clearly this is evidence in support of creationism and an organisms inability to limitlessly adapt for billions of years. Evos have come up with many theoretical assumptions to explain this in evolutionary terms and why TOE is not falsified. Hence the data supports creationism and the woffle supports TOE. The data supports creationism and the woffley excuses hypothesised supports TOE.
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/332/6034/11...
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/332/6034/11...
5. All data suggests the genome is deteriorating. Again this is creationist support demonstrating that adaptation is limited. Again evos have to toddle off and come up with some story and convoluted hypothesis as to why a deteriorating genome does not falsify TOE. The data supports creationism and the woffle supports TOE.
http://www.plosbiology.org/article/info:doi/1...
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/...
http://www.naturalnews.com/021220_genetic_mod...
6. Evolutionary supports are derived from arbitrary and pick a box morphological and genomic homology that changes like the wind and biased algorithmic magic that is no better than any algorithmic magic a creationists can provide. This is supported by an evolutionary history of falsifications, instability and change.
http://www.nature.com/news/studies-slow-the-h...
None of the above links are to creationist sites, Some speak to published data. Many of the above links are to the actual peer reviewed work.
Conclusion: Creationist views are supported by research data. Evolutionary views are supported by excuses, woffle, rhetoric and pure speculation.

You don't even lie well. 100% of the data supports evolution, but you don't know that because you comprehend 0% of the data.

You have linked to good research that in absolutely no way supports the creationist superstition.

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Marrickville, Australia

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#61974
Nov 30, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

I just love watching evos prattle on about philosophy and hubris on an evolution/creation debating thread and avoiding any discussing science.

I'l make sure to repost those posts to remind them all how hopeless they all are.

That also adds weights, Kong, to these evos, and your cohorts actually being empty vessels of hubris.

BTW, I like earth at the centre of the universe better than the mysteries of dark matter and a universe filled with 96% of something imagined to make their physics less problematic.

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

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Marrickville, Australia

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#61975
Nov 30, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
You don't even lie well. 100% of the data supports evolution, but you don't know that because you comprehend 0% of the data.
You have linked to good research that in absolutely no way supports the creationist superstition.
No links and only opinionated woffle as opposed to a substatial post. You're reply demonstrates what a pitiful goose you and your cohorts are.

You loose. I win.

End of discussion with you.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#61976
Nov 30, 2012
 
MazHere wrote:
I just love watching evos prattle on about philosophy and hubris on an evolution/creation debating thread and avoiding any discussing science.
I'l make sure to repost those posts to remind them all how hopeless they all are.
That also adds weights, Kong, to these evos, and your cohorts actually being empty vessels of hubris.
BTW, I like earth at the centre of the universe better than the mysteries of dark matter and a universe filled with 96% of something imagined to make their physics less problematic.
http://wallacegsmith.wordpress.com/2010/10/22...
What a maroon! That article was not about getting rid of the need of dark matter, it was about getting rid of the need of dark energy. Dark matter and dark energy only share the word "dark". That is as far as their similarities go. We still need dark matter and have observed it.

I do believe that article has already been debunked. But of course lying by reposting that story does not bother Maz. Without ignorance and lies she would have nothing.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#61977
Nov 30, 2012
 
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
My 6 points and posts 61745 and Post 61945-61947 have offered credible and substantial support for my views.

No, this is an outright lie as anyone who look at those links knows. They fully support evolution to the extent that is even an issue for them.

Explain how a genome that has been shown to be getting stronger is actually getting weaker.

Lets just look at the YEC myth for a second.

If the genome is getting weaker

An average bacteria goes through 65,700 generations per year. That is 394,200,000 generations in 6,000 years. Oh when are they going to start deteriorating? Evidence is that modern bacteria are more robust that ever and more resistant to more things.

If humans do the same we will still be thriving after 29,565,000,000 years. So I guess genetic entropy is not something we have to worry about for awhile. Like 29,564,994,000 years!!!!

Oh, and of course if bacteria are OLDER than 6,000 years.... well that is even worse for your case.

Oh and if you don't do numbers that big (I think anything over 10 would be a challenge for you) that is 29 BILLION, 564 MILLION, 994 THOUSAND years!

So universal entropy is a MUCH bigger worry than genetic entropy.


Elohim

Branford, CT

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#61978
Nov 30, 2012
 
Bat Foy wrote:
<quoted text>
GREAT!! Now answer the question.
There was no question, only your opinion.

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Marrickville, Australia

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#61979
Nov 30, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

MazHere wrote:
As all can see I have been able to provide links to research that support my claims. I have reposted some of them. Unfortunately the opposition is quite inept at supporting TOE, and are quite content with the scientific reflection of ‘quack‘ to support their view, with an obvious lack of links to research. No links=opinionated woffle.
Let’s recap shall we and see how these evos are doing in supporting TOE over creation over 2 posts.
1. Creationist predictions are continuing to be validated with the expectation that 100% of the genome likely to be functional. This validation comes after evolutionists shoved junk dna down creos throats as proof TOE was true, there was no designer and creos were idiots. Now they scurry off in shame, suggest TOE never could make a prediction around non coding dna but creos can clearly see just whom the idiots really are!
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/notrocketsc...
2. Creationists predictions are vestigial organs are continuing to be validated by evolutionists finding that these left over functionless organs do indeed have function. This validation comes after evolutionists found function in these organs and had to toddle off and redefine the definition of vestigial to reflect ‘a different’ function.
http://www.naturalnews.com/022914_appendix_gu...
3. Fossil evidence that is more in line with creationism then TOE. The Genesis account was the oldest account published that suggests the alignment of the fossil record from plant s to creatures of the sea, then land animals and lastly mankind. Evos were not the first to come up with this line up. Whales and birds are the only ones that evos have out of biblical alignment . Surprise, surprise they have been having trouble with these two ever since. Evos are still confused over whale bones found in strata dated to 290mya and have had to invent mythical theropods to wear a reversed hallux although not one single theropod ever found has modern avian feet. The data supports creationism and the woffle supports TOE.
http://www.ehow.com/list_7182299_fossils-foun...
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v417/n68...
Come on evos, admit the best you can do is scurry off down the garden path to evasion.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#61980
Nov 30, 2012
 
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
Run evos, run!
Huh? You've been running from me for months.(shrug)

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#61981
Nov 30, 2012
 
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
I am not silly enough to suggest that there is sufficient credible and robust data to make any concrete assertions on old earth or YEC views. Evos feel the need to do this and have a history of instability to show for it. Of course evos have to support molecules to man and I do not. Hence after the genesis, it is much easier sailing for creos than evos.
Translation, since half of the nonsense posted by creatards goes denies aspects of articles by other creatards she solves the problem by ignoring it. As long as the creatard is against evolution it is okay with Maz.
Elohim

Branford, CT

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#61982
Nov 30, 2012
 
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
No links and only opinionated woffle as opposed to a substatial post. You're reply demonstrates what a pitiful goose you and your cohorts are.
You loose. I win.
End of discussion with you.
Thanks for a great laugh on a shitty Friday!

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Marrickville, Australia

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#61983
Nov 30, 2012
 
MazHere wrote:
4. Beneficial mutations have an overwhelmingly negative effect due to epistasis. All the recent data supports this. Clearly this is evidence in support of creationism and an organisms inability to limitlessly adapt for billions of years. Evos have come up with many theoretical assumptions to explain this in evolutionary terms and why TOE is not falsified. Hence the data supports creationism and the woffle supports TOE. The data supports creationism and the woffley excuses hypothesised supports TOE.
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/332/6034/11...
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/332/6034/11...
5. All data suggests the genome is deteriorating. Again this is creationist support demonstrating that adaptation is limited. Again evos have to toddle off and come up with some story and convoluted hypothesis as to why a deteriorating genome does not falsify TOE. The data supports creationism and the woffle supports TOE.
http://www.plosbiology.org/article/info:doi/1...
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/...
http://www.naturalnews.com/021220_genetic_mod...
6. Evolutionary supports are derived from arbitrary and pick a box morphological and genomic homology that changes like the wind and biased algorithmic magic that is no better than any algorithmic magic a creationists can provide. This is supported by an evolutionary history of falsifications, instability and change.
http://www.nature.com/news/studies-slow-the-h...
None of the above links are to creationist sites, Some speak to published data. Many of the above links are to the actual peer reviewed work.
Conclusion: Creationist views are supported by research data. Evolutionary views are supported by excuses, woffle, rhetoric and pure speculation.
Come on you evos put some research where those attitudes are!

Oh that's right, you can't!

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#61984
Nov 30, 2012
 
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
No links and only opinionated woffle as opposed to a substatial post. You're reply demonstrates what a pitiful goose you and your cohorts are.
You loose. I win.
End of discussion with you.

Run away, Coward. Run away.

I think I hear your mommy calling you.

BTW, 29 TRILLION years.

[I can do the math for you, but what would be the point? You would not understand it anyway]
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#61985
Nov 30, 2012
 
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
So now you want to digress. The fake that you are.
My post above does address the burden of proof that the genome could not possibly have evolved over billions of years.
Creation is supported. TOE is falsified.
The burden is now on you to supply some shred of evidence to the contrary instead of chasing your tail.
We creos already know you can't support your view. Prove me wrong.
Already done. You ignored it. Why is that?

I notice you're still using the "If not A then B" fallacy. Keep shooting your own feet Maz.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#61986
Nov 30, 2012
 
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
Come on evos, admit the best you can do is scurry off down the garden path to evasion.

Creationism believes that tits are necessary on a man.
Creationism believes the wisdom teeth are necessary.

Creationists don't even know what an appendix is for! They "think" is is for replenishing the gut with bacteria.

Creationists are morons.


The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#61987
Nov 30, 2012
 
MazHere wrote:
Calling evotard Subduction Zone, that is too simple to even get himself out of his own way...
7.^ Sanford, J.C., Baumgardner, J., Brewer, W., Gibson, P., ReMine, W.(2007). Mendel's Accountant: a biologically realistic forward-time population genetics program. SCPE 8(2): 147-165. http://www.scpe.org .
8.^ Sanford, J.C., Baumgardner, J., Brewer, W., Gibson, P., ReMine, W.(2007). Using computer simulation to understand mutation accumulation dynamics and genetic load. In Shi et al.(Eds.),
ICCS 2007, Part II, LNCS 4488 (pp.386-392), Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg.
The above are Sanfords published papers.
If you weren't such a quacker you would have see that in the Wiki link.
Funny, I THOUGHT we already addressed this a few days ago.

Oh wait - we did. Oh well. Better luck next time Maz.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#61988
Nov 30, 2012
 
Elohim wrote:
<quoted text>Thanks for a great laugh on a shitty Friday!
Yes, Maz is an intellectual masochist. She comes here to get her daily ass whipping. A little kinky, but boring and tiresome after a while.

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

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 57,981 - 58,000 of106,039
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
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.

•••
•••
•••
•••