Evolution vs. Creation

Evolution vs. Creation

There are 197635 comments on the Best of New Orleans story from Jan 6, 2011, titled Evolution vs. Creation. In it, Best of New Orleans reports that:

High school senior Zack Kopplin is leading the fight to repeal the Louisiana Science Education Act of 2008.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Best of New Orleans.

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Australia

#64149 Dec 9, 2012
Subby..

Indeed I have presented a Nature publication that demonstrates creos claiming junk dna would be found to be functional. I have proven creos made their claims aforetime in 1998 and again in 2003 in the paper submitted to Nature.

I have presented evidence that evos rebuked creos predictions in Miller and that idiot, proffessor Moran, on Sandwalk.

I have presented evidence that the proposed evolutionary claim of 98% non functionality that supported TOE has gone to 80% functionality with credentialled evos suggesting it will likely go to 100%.

Therefore my claim is correct. Creationist predictions are being validated as time goes on like any prediction that has any merit should. Unlike TOE that has the predictive capability of a crystal ball.

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...

Point 1 is established.

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Australia

#64150 Dec 9, 2012
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
Behes letter to Nature, published 2003
The modern molecular example of poor design is pseudogenes. Why litter a genome with useless, broken copies of functional genes? It looks just like the aftermath of a blind, wasteful process. No designer would have done it that way.(2) Yet Hirotsune et al (3) show that at least one pseudogene has a function. If at least some pseudogenes have unsuspected functions, however, might not other biological features that strike us as odd also have functions we have not yet discovered? Might even the backwards wiring of the vertebrate eye serve some useful purpose?
http://www.arn.org/docs2/news/behepseudogene0...
Miller...
From a design point of view, pseudogenes are indeed mistakes. So why are they there? Intelligent design cannot explain the presence of a nonfunctional pseudogene, unless it is willing to allow that the designer made serious errors, wasting millions of bases of DNA on a blueprint full of junk and scribbles. Evolution, however, can explain them easily. Pseudogenes are nothing more than chance experiments in gene duplication that have failed, and they persist in the genome as evolutionary remnants of the past history of the b -globin genes.
http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/lgd/in...
Who is the idiot? Subby is because he is as ignorant and desperate as they come.
It appears that rather than me being the stinky one, Subduction Zone smells of ignorance and evasion and needs to suck eggs with the rest of the gaggle.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#64151 Dec 9, 2012
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
Behes letter to Nature, published 2003
The modern molecular example of poor design is pseudogenes. Why litter a genome with useless, broken copies of functional genes? It looks just like the aftermath of a blind, wasteful process. No designer would have done it that way.(2) Yet Hirotsune et al (3) show that at least one pseudogene has a function. If at least some pseudogenes have unsuspected functions, however, might not other biological features that strike us as odd also have functions we have not yet discovered? Might even the backwards wiring of the vertebrate eye serve some useful purpose?
http://www.arn.org/docs2/news/behepseudogene0...
Miller...
From a design point of view, pseudogenes are indeed mistakes. So why are they there? Intelligent design cannot explain the presence of a nonfunctional pseudogene, unless it is willing to allow that the designer made serious errors, wasting millions of bases of DNA on a blueprint full of junk and scribbles. Evolution, however, can explain them easily. Pseudogenes are nothing more than chance experiments in gene duplication that have failed, and they persist in the genome as evolutionary remnants of the past history of the b -globin genes.
http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/lgd/in...
Who is the idiot? Subby is because he is as ignorant and desperate as they come.
Nope, another Maz failure. You claimed that BEFORE the first news of "junk DNA" came out that creationists had predicted that the entire genome would be functional. This is not even a a prediction after "junk DNA" was first discovered. This is an article of a discredited creatard grasping at straws after the discovery that gave them a glimmer of hope was made.

You still have no answer for ancestral genes and ERV's. I will keep reminding you of that failure of yours.

As I have said, so far you have nothing. There is still not "there" there in your arguments.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#64152 Dec 9, 2012
MazHere wrote:
Subby..
Indeed I have presented a Nature publication that demonstrates creos claiming junk dna would be found to be functional. I have proven creos made their claims aforetime in 1998 and again in 2003 in the paper submitted to Nature.
I have presented evidence that evos rebuked creos predictions in Miller and that idiot, proffessor Moran, on Sandwalk.
I have presented evidence that the proposed evolutionary claim of 98% non functionality that supported TOE has gone to 80% functionality with credentialled evos suggesting it will likely go to 100%.
Therefore my claim is correct. Creationist predictions are being validated as time goes on like any prediction that has any merit should. Unlike TOE that has the predictive capability of a crystal ball.
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...
Point 1 is established.
I have not seen any Nature publications where creationists made such predictions. Remember, predictions have to be made BEFORE the event, otherwise they are not predictions but either explanations or rationalizations.

And no, Moran showed why your claims are still wrong.

And lastly the so called claim of 80% functionality is largely due to loosening of the definition. Place keepers are hardly functional and it is more likely a new use for old DNA.

And you have steadfastly ignored the enormous problem of ancestoral DNA and ERV's. When you can answer those huge problems with arguments that are better than mere handwaving you might have something.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#64153 Dec 9, 2012
And Mav, this is from the Discover article:
Scientists have long recognised that some non-coding DNA has a function,
Yes, like ERV's, and ancestral genes. Those were never considered to be junk.
Please try to understand the articles that you link.

As I have said time after time, "junk DNA" is a term similar to "UFO" when the DNA is identified it is no longer "junk".

In other words: Wrong Maz, try again.

Since: Nov 12

Raymond, Canada

#64155 Dec 9, 2012
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh so now you are quibbling over 20%, despite your own researchers saying that likely 100% will be found to be functional.
If it turns out there is still 20% non-functional DNA, would that discredit creation science entirely?

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#64156 Dec 9, 2012
AustinHook wrote:
<quoted text>
If it turns out there is still 20% non-functional DNA, would that discredit creation science entirely?
And not to mention the ERV's and ancestral genes that Maz wants to ignore.

“Darwin was right..of course.”

Level 9

Since: Jun 11

Evolution is true.....

#64157 Dec 9, 2012
TheIndependentMajority wrote:
<quoted text>
Above aka also Why SOME of us have Always prefered to read, research, question and Always, Always--think for ourselves!! Because it'd be pretty boring to live in such a limited "self know it all world" and have to miss interesting stuff like below!
Underground Tunnels Found in Israel Used In Ancient Jewish Revolt
Brian Handwerk
for National Geographic News
March 15, 2006
A series of underground chambers and tunnels recently found in Israel were likely used as refuges during the First Jewish Revolt, archaeologists with the Israel Antiquities Authority announced.
Storage jars found in one pit were an apparent stockpile of foodstuffs for the uprising against Roman rule that began in A.D. 66.
"The pits are connected to each other by short tunnels, and it seems that they were used as hiding refuges—a kind of concealed subterranean home—that were built prior to the Great Revolt against the Romans," Alexandre said in a statement.
I don't believe I wrote the little blurb you quoted in this reply.

“Darwin was right..of course.”

Level 9

Since: Jun 11

Evolution is true.....

#64158 Dec 9, 2012
From the BBC:
"Science shows that the Biblical creation story is not literally true, and demonstrates that Adam and Eve and the Garden of Eden are myths and not historical figures.
This destroys the idea of original sin as being caused by the misbehaviour of the first man and woman, and the idea of inheriting guilt or punishment for that misbehaviour.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/chris...

“Darwin was right..of course.”

Level 9

Since: Jun 11

Evolution is true.....

#64159 Dec 9, 2012
Does genetics support a single couple (Adam and Eve)?

NO...

http://biologos.org/blog/does-genetics-point-...
anonymous

Chagrin Falls, OH

#64160 Dec 9, 2012
In quiet moments like this, I usually like to compose a dirty limerick or two to get the drama going. Maybe a bit of Wagner parody will suffice!

"I killed the wabbit!!

.....I killed the wabbit!!!"
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#64161 Dec 9, 2012
O HAI MAZ! I see you're still trotting out the "junk DNA findings debunk evolution!" lie again.
MazHere wrote:
1. Creationist predictions are continuing to be validated with the expectation that 100% of the genome likely to be functional.
Yup. Some include functioning chicken teeth! But as we keep pointing out, it's not so much function as the pattern of heredity we see in DNA which demonstrates evolution.
MazHere wrote:
This validation comes after evolutionists shoved junk dna down creos throats as proof TOE was true, there was no designer
Evolution makes no such theological claims as to whether or not a God was involved.
MazHere wrote:
and creos were idiots.
And they still are.
MazHere wrote:
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...
Hence the claim a creationist prediction continues to be validated is correct. You evos are now on notice. My point 1 is established.
Except it hasn't, since we've already demonstrated you wrong. Multiple times. Chicken teeth? Evolution prediction baby. Can creationism predict ANY kind of functions at all? Well uh, no, not really. Just some vague promise that it all must do something because it all must have a purpose we just don't know what it is yet therefore EVILUSHUN IZ RONG AND GODDIDIT WITH MAGIC! In the meantime biologists are using evolutionary algorithms to predict protein function with 96% accuracy.

What's the "scientific theory" of creationism again?

.

Uhuh. Thought so.

“cdesign proponentsists”

Level 1

Since: Jul 09

Pittsburgh, PA

#64162 Dec 9, 2012
TheIndependentMajority wrote:
<quoted text>
There's your problem.
There's NO such thing.
My son? Yes there is, I see him sitting there in front of me.

A want to know everything? Yes there is a want to know everything and I have it.

What thing are you talking about?
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#64163 Dec 9, 2012
TheIndependentMajority wrote:
<quoted text>
The difference between mere animalistic behavior, and civilized society.
Civilized people can control themselves by litening to a little thing called conscience. Animals often can't.
Then creationists by said definition must be animals for having no conscience. Or maybe Maz has it but just isn't listening.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#64164 Dec 9, 2012
TheIndependentMajority wrote:
<quoted text>
Always did say/think that the proverbial missing link lies somewhere in the "water ages" of this earth...and everything else just followed.
Derwin, like many others before--and STILL, just did NOT have the whole big picture.
No he didn't.

He correctly predicted part of that picture though. And that's why evolution is the only game in town in biological circles.

“what we think we become”

Level 5

Since: Aug 11

above and beyond

#64165 Dec 9, 2012

Level 1

Since: Dec 12

Location hidden

#64166 Dec 9, 2012
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
If I wanted to preach I'd go elsewhere. The true God does not care about the evolution/creation debate, He already knows. I am still curious.
I am here to see how evos can justify their incredible egos with science. So far I have found no justification with most evos being happy to talk philosophy or make challenges and then hide.
I don't really care how God created I just dislike the evoegomaniacs and like to dual with them.
I don't preach, I deal with facts. To my best interpretation, creation works. No fossil evidence proves that the evos are out to lunch. They push evo because of their hatred to acknowledge a creator, or someone to answer to. Independence is a religion you know. I duel with all the evos too. They have no evidence. NONE.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#64167 Dec 9, 2012
Cybele wrote:
<quoted text>
Stop putting words in my mouth.
I didn't say ALL science is wrong. You just want to pretend that I don't understand anything about it. How much do you know about DNA that you are absolutely sure that changes in DNA led to evolution?
Enough. Because if we found a giraffe with a genetic makeup that completely violated nested hierarchies then we certainly would have heard about it.

Well, unless that big mean old atheist Darwinist world-wide conspiracy covered it all up that is.

Of course if you DO happen to have a valid critique of the information I just posted then not just us but the ENTIRE BIOLOGICAL COMMUNITY would certainly love to hear about it.

I've asked that of every other fundie I've come across for years too. But they never seem to wanna take up the offer.

So so far, no, you don't appear to know very much about it. Otherwise you wouldn't have asked that question in the first place. The anti-evolutionist's FIRST place of argument is one from ignorance. That's why creationists constantly argue against straw-men.
Cybele wrote:
How do you explain a giraffe's long neck? Did it have to reach up that high to eat when it bends down to eat grass? That's just one example. I can go on and on and you wouldn't know the answer.
Of course you could. That's because Gish-gallopping is far easier than addressing reality. Of course that would only be ignoring the evidence we DO have for evolution in favour of looking for any gaps of knowledge - of which there will always be in any scientific endeavor. For if we knew *everything* we would be God.

But as it turns out, your query here doesn't even ADDRESS the validity of evolution. Giraffe have long necks? So what?(shrug) Whereas evolution CAN explain why it still has only the same amount of neck vertibrae instead of lots more (which would be much more efficient) and why the laryngeal nerve goes down from the head to the chest and back up again, and also explains why the okapi's anatomically similar.

That enough for ya?

So YES. Actually ALL of science would be re-thought if evolution were wrong. Because if something doesn't work the way it should it would tend to affect something else. Which in turn would affect something else. And something else. And so on. If evolution is wrong then geology is wrong. If geology is wrong then astrophysics is wrong. If geology and astrophysics is wrong then you have no oil for plastics and no GPS for your cellphone which now has no nice no-plastic case made of shite. Oh, and your computer does not work too. Yet here you are typing on it.

So PLEASE, put some thought behind your posts before you go off repeating some dumbazz creationist "question" which "seriously puts biology as a whole into doubt!"

The fact of the matter is that if we are dealing with anti-evolutionists then we are dealing with someone who is willfully ignorant. And I'd suggest arguing against gravity instead.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#64168 Dec 9, 2012
Makesure100 wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't preach, I deal with facts. To my best interpretation, creation works. No fossil evidence proves that the evos are out to lunch. They push evo because of their hatred to acknowledge a creator, or someone to answer to. Independence is a religion you know. I duel with all the evos too. They have no evidence. NONE.
Of course they don't. It's all just a big world-wide atheistic Darwinist conspiracy involving multiple countries, governments, schools, universities, courts, every major scientific organisation and literally hundreds of thousands of scientists working in the field. Oh, and some 12,000 Christian clergy to boot. Must be them "fake" Christians the creo's often tell us about huh.

Evolution really IS wrong. Why? Because life really was poofed into existence just a few short thousands of years ago by an invisible magical Jew wizard.

Or go back to 885 and try again.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#64169 Dec 9, 2012
Makesure100 wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't preach, I deal with facts. To my best interpretation, creation works.
By the way, I'd certainly like to know how. Presumably your "scientific theory" of GODDIDIT WITH MAGIC is relevant to the scientific method, yes? Just how did Noah re-populate the Earth after all that in-teh-fam nook-nook?

With his atoms scattered across the solar system?

THAT'S ONE HECK OF A BOTTLENECK!

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

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
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 32 min scientia potentia... 13,447
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 35 min scientia potentia... 31,448
News It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 13 hr ChromiuMan 151,061
This is how christians fumble up the evolution ... Mon zxx838557 1
Rome Viharo debunks evolution Sun Paul Porter1 2
Evolution in action May 27 MIDutch 1
News RANT: Is "global warming" today's version of th... May 25 bearings 2
More from around the web