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
59,161 - 59,180 of 115,227 Comments Last updated 2 hrs ago

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#63292 Dec 5, 2012
Cybele wrote:
<quoted text>
Can you be more coherent?
Cybele does not do analogies.

He was saying that they have their ways of measuring rates of mutation. Of course actual rates may vary a bit from the laboratory results just like the measurement of speed that your speedometer gives you may not, in fact will not, be one hundred percent accurate.

“I started out with nothing”

Level 6

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

#63293 Dec 5, 2012
Bat Foy wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't believe only Christians will make heaven. The bible says where their is no law their is no sin. When the bible talks about law it means the law of Moses which is the Ten Commandments.
Do you realise that the idea of heaven is objectionable to some people? Some consider it a baseless threat just as some consider hell a baseless threat. Some consider it an idle waste of thought. Some consider it a myth and people who subscribe to that myth are somehow missing something. And some just think, here we go again, I have to suffer more christian dogma

Is it only 10? Or 67 or perhaps 613

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

#63294 Dec 5, 2012
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
What questions?
I am not lying because I can present evidence to suport my view and all you obviously can provide is evasion and questions.
Archeopteryx is not an intermediate anything because all it cited intermediate traits are actually theropod traits.
I have posted a link that shows speaks to it. That is the latest flavour of the month from your researchers. Would you like me to post it again?
Feathers are found on dinosaurs,TRex has a furcula and the dino furcula looks nothing like a bird wish bone.
None of you simpletons are even brave enough to comment on the FACTS above. Evasion is a key evo strategy.
What is intermediate? I see no intermediacy at all. I have demonstrated why arch is not intermediate and all you can do is gobble about your fictious posts that contain little more than babble.
As for whales. The fact is that the carbon dating on the bones gave inconsistent results possibly due to contamination. That is what the link said and what many references to these whale bones state. That is a fact. Researchers have no explantion as to how the whale bones got there. That is also a stated fact. Rising water levels and all sorts of things can throw dating off and if you were not such a boofhead you would know that. That is just one of the flaws in carbon dating.
The whale bones were found in a geological area dated to over 290mya. That is also a fact you have no and cannot refute. There are no dinosaur fosils in Michagan and evos suggest ice sheets stripped them away. Not that I'd expect you know anything like that. That is still a fact.
What's worse for evos is that you have a huge fraudulent misrepresentation that is presented to the public in your glossy whale evolution pictures. So you evos have NO evidence for your whale evolution theory other than fraudulent misrepresentation.
The facts have been supported by research and articles from your own evolutionists. If you deny them then state which ones you deny and I will repost the link and demonstrate what an ignorant boof you are. Yiu cannot escape the facts, one can only interpret them according to their underlying assumptions.
All you can do is be ignorant along with Subby and Kong, pose challenges and then run away.
Show me this mythical evidence of intermediacy in archeopteryx or shut up. God only knows how much you lot gobble on about it.
You are addressing one of my 6 points. You are not doing well.
Now you're lying. The whale bones were found in Holocene strata.

This has been made abundantly clear.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#63295 Dec 5, 2012
Maz said:
Archeopteryx is not an intermediate anything because all it cited intermediate traits are actually theropod traits.
No, there are many traits that some therapods had but not necessarily all of them. But if birds came from therapods we would expect to see at least some therapods with these traits. For example hardly any therapods had wings. Most didn't. Wings ARE an avian trait. I don't know how many therapods had feathers, but archaeopteryx definitely had them. Feathers are an avian trait. Very few therapods flew. Archaeopteryx flew. Flying is an avian trait. And please don't cite the few nonflying birds. Over 99% of birds can fly so yes, flying is an avian trait.

Maz, it would help you if you took a basic logic course.

“I started out with nothing”

Level 6

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

#63296 Dec 5, 2012
Cybele wrote:
<quoted text>
The computer uses binary codes, duh
What is a binary code?

How does a computer use binary codes?

Can you explain the actions a binary code had on a gate array?

How does a binary code effect a computer display?

Does an analogue computer use binary codes?

“I started out with nothing”

Level 6

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

#63297 Dec 5, 2012
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
What questions?
I am not lying because I can present evidence to suport my view and all you obviously can provide is evasion and questions.
...
Go on then – real evidence is all we ask

However if you can’t, and you have not been able to up to date then I suggest you drop that line and stop making promises you cannot keep because it makes you look even more stupid

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Everton, Australia

#63298 Dec 5, 2012
anonymous wrote:
<quoted text>
People like that tend to be marginalized, no matter their faith. The real question is whether or not they identify and accept the reasons why they become marginalized. In a few rare cases, the Church gives them a sanctuary and order, kind of like a spiritual boot camp, where they can mature to the point of self-reliance.
For the most part, they're addicts who are just trying out a new drug, and they'll pull everyone into their private nightmare if they let them. I suppose the question few people consider when regarding marginalized people is whether those people are pulling everyone else down, or is everyone else pushing them away because they think the marginalized will be a liability to their petty consumer ambitions?
Batfoy can't get pocket change for a fix by hanging out here. I think he's just practicing in advance for promoting himself in his religiously biased community.
You need more faith in these screw ups you call evolutionaruy researchers than fat boy will ever need to have to believe in God.

You bow down to your evo reseachers and hold their hands through falsification after falsification and are still bowing. You evos are still wiping the egg off your faces from over 150 years of fraudulent claims for human knuckle walking ancestry that were falsified on the back of one single fossil, you numbnuts.

All the twoddle of having empirical evidence for junk dna that only a fool creo would not accept, is falsified. Now it is you evolutionists and all your gobble that have been proven to be the real misrepresentative idiots that rely on faith in these boofheads.

The above is a small demonstration that those that are atheist evolutionists and consider themselves 'not marginalized', have been proven to be boofheads many times. The theist evos can hold hands with the atheists seeing as they denounce the power of God and rely on the reasonings of man. They to now have egg on their faces.

Yours is a faith in mans reasonings and mans reasonings has been stumbling, changing and been falsified on a regular basis, whilst handing over data in support of creation to creos on a silver platter.

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Everton, Australia

#63299 Dec 5, 2012
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
Go on then – real evidence is all we ask
However if you can’t, and you have not been able to up to date then I suggest you drop that line and stop making promises you cannot keep because it makes you look even more stupid
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...

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 hubris that explains the data and hand waves it away.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#63300 Dec 5, 2012
Kong_ wrote:
<quoted text>
Now you're lying. The whale bones were found in Holocene strata.
This has been made abundantly clear.
No, they may have been found in an unconsolidated sandstone. Your article said that the origin of the whale bones was holocene. It rather politely said that they were planted in the sandstone.

I grew up on a farm with outcrops of what I later learned were St. Peter Sandstone. It is about 470 million years old. It wold form a tough surface that could be easily punctured. Once you were through that you did not use a hammer on it, you used a shovel. It is a very pure quartz sandstone. Quartz by itself does not make a very good cement at all. Where St Peter Sandstone is "quarried" it is dug up for the purity of its sand which has quite a few industrial uses. I am betting that this was the same kind of quarry. All it would take to place the bones in such an outcrop is a shovel and a willingness to dig.

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Everton, Australia

#63301 Dec 5, 2012
Subduction Zone wrote:
Maz said:
<quoted text>
No, there are many traits that some therapods had but not necessarily all of them. But if birds came from therapods we would expect to see at least some therapods with these traits. For example hardly any therapods had wings. Most didn't. Wings ARE an avian trait. I don't know how many therapods had feathers, but archaeopteryx definitely had them. Feathers are an avian trait. Very few therapods flew. Archaeopteryx flew. Flying is an avian trait. And please don't cite the few nonflying birds. Over 99% of birds can fly so yes, flying is an avian trait.
Maz, it would help you if you took a basic logic course.
Feathes are not an avian trait, you idiot. You should know that feathers have been found on dinosaurs. TRex had feathers.

Hence Arch having feathers is not in intermediate trait at all. It was when these bright sparks did not know that dinos had feathers but they do now, and you say that you kow of it.

Flying is not an avian trait either you goose. eg bats and insects, pterodactyl, fish can glide and so can other mammals.

So why do you site feathers as being an intermediate trait when they are not? Why do you site flying is an avian trait?

I suggest that the answer is because in actual fact you have no clue, you just want to prattle on because you have faith with nothing of substance to base it on.

Level 8

Since: Aug 08

Location hidden

#63302 Dec 5, 2012
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>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...
Those articles suggest that epistasis decreases the rate of adaption and evolution. They do not suggest that evolution does not happen. You are making that up.

So, please stop making this ridiculous article and pointing to scientific articles that do not in any way shape or form suggest what you say they do. Doing so simply destroys the extremely limited credibility that you have.

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#63303 Dec 5, 2012
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
Nice to see you reply to a substantive post with a demonstration of your aptitude for evasion.
Ridicule is all you have left because your one shot and science, the backbone, shot you in the foot. You've been limping ever since.
When you post a link that actually agrees with you and is from a reputable and scientific source, then I'll address you with nothing more than mockery. Until then, you will only receive what you are, and you are a mockery to the information age.

Level 2

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

#63304 Dec 5, 2012
tony1003 wrote:
<quoted text>
I am English and I do not know you are right. If you look at old English, it is more similar to old German than it is to modern English. Like any living language, it has changed over the centuries. On arrival, the Angles and Saxons were speaking old German. This gradually mutated as elements of Scaninavian, and particularly French entered it with subsequent invasions. If you want to hear the descendant of the language spoken by the Britons before the Germanic invasion, you need to listen to Gaelic, Welsh and Cornish. That was the original language of these islands. England as a country does not comne into existence until the ninth century AD. History 101.
This has been my stand ever.
I said that( this) before. Gaelic is a Celtic language spoken in Scotland, Welsh and Cornish, are all both Celtic languages spoken in Wales and Cornwall. These languages were spoken by the ancient Britons, to date.

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#63305 Dec 5, 2012
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
What is a binary code?
How does a computer use binary codes?
Can you explain the actions a binary code had on a gate array?
How does a binary code effect a computer display?
Does an analogue computer use binary codes?
Gah, I almost answered all these in a post, took me about 5 minutes to pull back into human thought mode. lol

Analogue computers, we need to explore that option so much right now, binary is just not as capable, imagine an analogue computing system using the speeds we have today. Instead of measuring in Ghz, we'd have to measure phones in Thz.

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

#63306 Dec 5, 2012
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
No, they may have been found in an unconsolidated sandstone. Your article said that the origin of the whale bones was holocene. It rather politely said that they were planted in the sandstone.
I grew up on a farm with outcrops of what I later learned were St. Peter Sandstone. It is about 470 million years old. It wold form a tough surface that could be easily punctured. Once you were through that you did not use a hammer on it, you used a shovel. It is a very pure quartz sandstone. Quartz by itself does not make a very good cement at all. Where St Peter Sandstone is "quarried" it is dug up for the purity of its sand which has quite a few industrial uses. I am betting that this was the same kind of quarry. All it would take to place the bones in such an outcrop is a shovel and a willingness to dig.
I defer to your interpretation of the data.

But the items in question were whale BONES. Not "FOSSILS".

Which in and of itself would preclude them from being 291M years old.

Since: Nov 12

Milk River, Canada

#63307 Dec 5, 2012
Cybele wrote:
<quoted text>
Where did I say that... cells reproduce sexually? where?
There is a kind of sexuality in some single celled species where they stick together and exchange genetic material. More classic sexuality is seen pretty soon in some small multi-celled organisms, like hydra, which reproduce in sexual and non-sexual ways. BTW, hydra have a little advantage over the rest of us, since they are immortal (barring accidents). I guess if we were like them, religion would have less appeal

Even smaller is the diatom, a single celled organism which reproduces both ways. It reproduces by division and also can split out into 4 sperms or an egg.

The smallest organisms to reproduce ONLY sexually are probably some of the worms. It's not area of my expertise, but I did, as a child, keep some planaria (flatworms), and it was possible to cut then lengthwise and end up with two healthy worms after they regenerated.

“what we think we become”

Level 5

Since: Aug 11

above and beyond

#63308 Dec 5, 2012
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
What is a binary code?
How does a computer use binary codes?
Can you explain the actions a binary code had on a gate array?
How does a binary code effect a computer display?
Does an analogue computer use binary codes?
You can easily find the answer on google.

The core of computing is binary encoding. The premise is that each of the transistor switches is either on of off, represented by 1 or 0. Each bit is a BInary digiT.

Each of these switches is more-or-less useless on its own. However, you can arrange them in a sequence to get some logic.

Humans use hexadecimal representation as a form of shorthand for binary. That's a 16-base number system that goes from 0-9 then a-f, then rolls over from 0f to 10.

When you write a computer program, the compiler converts your code into opcode, a hex representation of the binary stream. The CPU interprets the opcodes and follows the program, manipulating bits in the accumulator section. In other words, it reads the binary code and uses that code to switch bits on and off in its "brain". The outgoing data is then sent to various locations in the computer, such as to the sound card, video card, hard disk, RAM, etc. You can do this by mapping each location to a virtual location in the computer. For example, you could set the address 0x2000 to be the sound card, and when you write the data 0x5e41 to 0x2000, the sound card will interpret that data and put out an analog signal to the speakers. You could also read the data at location 0x3000 to see what's on that location in the hard drive.

“what we think we become”

Level 5

Since: Aug 11

above and beyond

#63309 Dec 5, 2012
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Cybele does not do analogies.
He was saying that they have their ways of measuring rates of mutation. Of course actual rates may vary a bit from the laboratory results just like the measurement of speed that your speedometer gives you may not, in fact will not, be one hundred percent accurate.
What are their ways of measuring mutation rates? There are more than one method? that's hard to believe.

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#63310 Dec 5, 2012
Cybele wrote:
<quoted text>
The computer uses binary codes, duh
That's about a succinct and answer as we can expect ... from someone who knows nothing about computer technology.

Did you know that every single pixel, that's what the little colored dots on your monitor are called, is actually a number? Well, three numbers, technically four but the fourth is not used unless you have it set to utilize the extra data, but then you have to have a faster processor as it has to bit align the data or all you get is garbage, then you need a graphics card capable of matching that setting as well, or it will realign the bits and all that effort is wasted. Most images stored in data formats are 32 bit, or 64 bit but I don't see why people are so excited about that extra data being used since our eyes cannot detect the difference at a reasonable distance of viewing. Each number, typically 32 bits of data lumped together sequentially into a byte, represent intensities of color, by varying the three primary colors of red, green, and blue, you can create almost any color, I say almost because being binary limits the values between 1 and 0, full on and full off. The fourth value is often used as the alpha channel for data format images, the alpha channel is "how much" to mix that color with the color it's being put over, but only the png format utilizes this to the fullest potential, others will just be one or off like the gif format.

.... and that's just a tiny, very tiny, bit of information on how a computer works now. So tiny it would take a million of these posts just to explain the very basics.

Level 2

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

#63311 Dec 5, 2012
tony1003 wrote:
<quoted text>
I am English and I do not know you are right. If you look at old English, it is more similar to old German than it is to modern English. Like any living language, it has changed over the centuries. On arrival, the Angles and Saxons were speaking old German. This gradually mutated as elements of Scaninavian, and particularly French entered it with subsequent invasions. If you want to hear the descendant of the language spoken by the Britons before the Germanic invasion, you need to listen to Gaelic, Welsh and Cornish. That was the original language of these islands. England as a country does not comne into existence until the ninth century AD. History 101.
Again, you are misquoting my post. I understand what you are saying, my position is not on Great Britain or the UK, but on England and the English language.
English is native to England, because it was first spoken there.

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.

Evolution Debate Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 1 hr DanFromSmithville 136,256
Evolution Theory Facing Crisis 1 hr Christian 202
Should evolution be taught in high school? (Feb '08) 2 hr Kong_ 172,515
Genetic 'Adam' and 'Eve' Uncovered - live science (Sep '13) 5 hr TurkanaBoy 315
Science News (Sep '13) Thu positronium 2,848
The Satanic Character of Social Darwinism Aug 27 Zog Has-fallen 343
Natural Selection Not The Only Process That Dri... (Jan '14) Aug 25 reMAAT 20
•••
Enter and win $5000
•••

Evolution Debate People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••