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
69,561 - 69,580 of 113,285 Comments Last updated 3 hrs ago

Since: Apr 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#73919
Feb 5, 2013
 
Cybele wrote:
<quoted text>My sugar daddy rocks. lol

Why do you want to know how life started when you don't know much life itself. Have you ever thought about junk DNA and why we have it?
"A number of leading proponents of Darwinian evolution claim that “junk DNA”—the non-protein-coding DNA that makes up more than 95% of our genome—provides decisive evidence for Darwin’s theory and against intelligent design, since an intelligent designer would not have littered our genome with so much garbage. In The Myth of Junk DNA, biologist Jonathan Wells exposes their claim as an anti-scientific myth that ignores the evidence, relies on illegitimate theological speculations, and impedes biomedical research. After reading this book, your view of the genome will never be the same again."

Since: Apr 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#73920
Feb 5, 2013
 
Cybele wrote:
<quoted text>My sugar daddy rocks. lol

Why do you want to know how life started when you don't know much life itself. Have you ever thought about junk DNA and why we have it?
"Hidden Treasures in Junk DNA
What was once known as junk DNA turns out to hold hidden treasures, says computational biologist Ewan Birney
By Stephen S. Hall

BIG PICTURE
“I get this strong feeling that previously I was ignorant of my own ignorance, and now I understand my ignorance.”

In the 1970s, when biologists first glimpsed the landscape of human genes, they saw that the small pieces of DNA that coded for proteins (known as exons) seemed to float like bits of wood in a sea of genetic gibberish. What on earth were those billions of other letters of DNA there for? No less a molecular luminary than Francis Crick, co-discoverer of DNA’s double-helical structure, suspected it was “little better than junk.”

The phrase “junk DNA” has haunted human genetics ever since. In 2000, when scientists of the Human Genome Project presented the first rough draft of the sequence of bases, or code letters, in human DNA, the initial results appeared to confirm that the vast majority of the sequence—perhaps 97 percent of its 3.2 billion bases—had no apparent function. The “Book of Life,” in other words, looked like a heavily padded text.

Now, in a series of papers published in September in Nature (Scientific American is part of Nature Publishing Group) and elsewhere, the ENCODE group has produced a stunning inventory of previously hidden switches, signals and sign posts embedded like runes throughout the entire length of human DNA. In the process, the ENCODE project is reinventing the vocabulary with which biologists study, discuss and understand human inheritance and disease.

Ewan Birney, 39, of the European Bioinformatics Institute in Cambridge, England, led the analysis by the more than 400 ENCODE scientists who annotated the genome. He recently spoke with Scientific American about the major findings. Excerpts follow.

Scientific American: The ENCODE project has revealed a landscape that is absolutely teeming with important genetic elements—a landscape that used to be dismissed as “junk DNA.” Were our old views of how the genome is organized too simplistic?
BIRNEY: People always knew there was more there than protein-coding genes. It was always clear that there was regulation. What we didn’t know was just quite how extensive this was.

Just to give you a sense here, about 1.2 percent of the bases are in protein-coding exons. And people speculated that “maybe there’s the same amount again involved in regulation or maybe a little bit more.” But even if we take quite a conservative view from our ENCODE data, we end up with something like 8 to 9 percent of the bases of the genome involved in doing something like regulation."
Charlie Rango

Nha Trang, Vietnam

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#73921
Feb 5, 2013
 
Cybele wrote:
<quoted text>
I come from the star Vega. You know I'm also related to that criminal from an episode of Mentalist. lol
Men tall list?!!;-000000 watta Q A;)~ don't see CBS to much;)

“what we think we become”

Level 5

Since: Aug 11

above and beyond

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#73922
Feb 5, 2013
 
Langoliers wrote:
<quoted text>
Junk DNA
Bad name! Should call "science doesn't know what this DNA does "
evidence for evolution?

Since: Apr 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#73923
Feb 5, 2013
 
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>first one would need to have the teensiest shred of evidence that any god, gods or goddesses have ever maybe existed, then that could maybe be part of the discussion. when you find that shred, get back to us...
The Bible is a bit more then a shred.

Now how did your spontaneous life start in your dream world?
Charlie Rango

Nha Trang, Vietnam

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#73924
Feb 5, 2013
 
Langoliers wrote:
<quoted text>
Junk DNA
Bad name! Should call "science doesn't know what this DNA does "
U hidden yo DNA butta show up yo RNA rain!;)

Since: Apr 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#73925
Feb 5, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>Do you mean abiogenesis? It helps if you use the correct terms.

Scientists are still working out the details of how it may have happened. This concept is still in the hypothetical stage which means scientists are not sure. Of course there worst Wild Ass Guess is definitely better than your best one. If you want to see where they were about 5 years ago you can watch this short video that explains how it could have happened by chemical means only. No magic, no special effects, just chemistry:

http://www.youtube.com/watch...
No, I mean spontaneous life generation.
There is nothing wrong with this term as its proven to provide just as much life as
abiogenesis.

Go ahead and rule out things that you have no proof or reason to rule out. Your worst Wild Ass Guess is a great idea. You seem to quite use to that.

LOL. Rain falling on rocks, why with every Thunderstorm we should see new life happening all the time. Why is it that science has not been able to create life yet? It's just rain and rocks, should not be to hard to set that up in the lab.

“what we think we become”

Level 5

Since: Aug 11

above and beyond

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#73926
Feb 5, 2013
 
Charlie Rango wrote:
<quoted text>
Men tall list?!!;-000000 watta Q A;)~ don't see CBS to much;)
I don't either. It was just a random-a thing. lol

Level 1

Since: Feb 13

Riverside , CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#73927
Feb 5, 2013
 
Langoliers wrote:
<quoted text>
The Bible is a bit more then a shred.
Now how did your spontaneous life start in your dream world?
Again i will say... "If your trying to refer to the origin of life in your own nieve way its much more complicated then that and its not simply spontaneous. Human life as we are today is a evolutionary process that has taken billions of years. Like i said read a science book. evolution has been proven over and over again and if you think you can disprove it then wright it down get it peer reviewed and collect your nobel prize"...

Since: Apr 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#73928
Feb 5, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

trekx wrote:
<quoted text>First off Rain on rocks, WTF?? If your trying to refer to the origin of life in your own nieve way its much more complicated then that and its not simply spontaneous. Human life as we are today is a evolutionary process that has taken billions of years. Like i said read a science book. evolution has been proven over and over again and if your think you can disprove it wright it down get it peer reviewed and collect your nobel prize...
No it's not more complicated. science claims that millions of years of
rain washed the essence of life out of the rocks and into the primordial soup then one day poof life.

There is zero proof for macro evolution.

Since: Apr 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#73929
Feb 5, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Cybele wrote:
<quoted text>evidence for evolution?
No there is no such thing as evolution.
That's just a very old science myth.

Since: Apr 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#73930
Feb 5, 2013
 
trekx wrote:
<quoted text>Again i will say... "If your trying to refer to the origin of life in your own nieve way its much more complicated then that and its not simply spontaneous. Human life as we are today is a evolutionary process that has taken billions of years. Like i said read a science book. evolution has been proven over and over again and if you think you can disprove it then wright it down get it peer reviewed and collect your nobel prize"...
Unlike you repeating a lie doesn't make me believe it.

Level 1

Since: Feb 13

Riverside , CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#73931
Feb 5, 2013
 

Judged:

1

Langoliers wrote:
<quoted text>
No it's not more complicated. science claims that millions of years of
rain washed the essence of life out of the rocks and into the primordial soup then one day poof life.
There is zero proof for macro evolution.
Yes it is very much more complicated then that, and evolution is a proven fact and the reason why you need a new flu shoot every year. And like i said disprove it and collect your nobel prize not to mention the organizations that are offering cash rewards totaling millions of dollars for disproving it.

So tell me, what is a better more logical explanation for life, A. an invisible being that lives in the sky snapped its fingers and poof there is life. Or B. microscopic biological organisms evolved over billions of years forming thousands of species including humans. Seems pretty straight forward to me ...

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#73932
Feb 5, 2013
 
Langoliers wrote:
<quoted text>
No, I mean spontaneous life generation.
There is nothing wrong with this term as its proven to provide just as much life as
abiogenesis.
Go ahead and rule out things that you have no proof or reason to rule out. Your worst Wild Ass Guess is a great idea. You seem to quite use to that.
LOL. Rain falling on rocks, why with every Thunderstorm we should see new life happening all the time. Why is it that science has not been able to create life yet? It's just rain and rocks, should not be to hard to set that up in the lab.
I see you took the common creatard tactic of ignoring evidence.

You obviously did not watch the video I linked otherwise you would not still be asking such moronic questions.

Watch the video and try again.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#73933
Feb 5, 2013
 

Judged:

1

Langoliers wrote:
<quoted text>
Unlike you repeating a lie doesn't make me believe it.
Besides, repeating lies is a tactic that creatards already have a patent on.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#73934
Feb 5, 2013
 

Judged:

1

Langoliers wrote:
<quoted text>
No it's not more complicated. science claims that millions of years of
rain washed the essence of life out of the rocks and into the primordial soup then one day poof life.
There is zero proof for macro evolution.
Again wrong word idiot.

The word you want is "evidence" more specifically "scientific evidence".

There are literally mountains of scientific evidence that supports evolution. And no scientific evidence that supports creationism.

Level 1

Since: Feb 13

Riverside , CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#73935
Feb 5, 2013
 

Judged:

1

Langoliers wrote:
<quoted text>
Unlike you repeating a lie doesn't make me believe it.
Hey the burden of proof lies on religion. Science is a proven method and a far better explanation then, its true because i read it in a ancient book full is superstition written by men in a time when they believed the world was flat... The bible is the true lie. and if you disapprove of science so much then become Amish.
ZACKLY

Pass Christian, MS

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#73936
Feb 6, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

trekx wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes it is very much more complicated then that, and evolution is a proven fact and the reason why you need a new flu shoot every year. And like i said disprove it and collect your nobel prize not to mention the organizations that are offering cash rewards totaling millions of dollars for disproving it.
So tell me, what is a better more logical explanation for life, A. an invisible being that lives in the sky snapped its fingers and poof there is life. Or B. microscopic biological organisms evolved over billions of years forming thousands of species including humans. Seems pretty straight forward to me ...
It has already been discussed on this thread. The Creator created living things at once and then he showed them patterns to follow to be fruitful and multiply them after their own kind. Everything follows patterns according to the theory. The theory suggest that some species are made to follow after similar patterns by are their own kind. Have you heard of SCP theory?

“I started out with nothing”

Level 6

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#73937
Feb 6, 2013
 

Judged:

1

Cybele wrote:
<quoted text>
We are energy
http://www.youtube.com/watch...
Everything is energy

“I started out with nothing”

Level 6

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#73938
Feb 6, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

Charles Idemi wrote:
<quoted text>You have no evidence disproving the existence of a God. The universe is a proof of God's existence, what brought it into existence?
A question no one has ever correctly and truthfully answered.
That is a double negative, did you progress from home school?

So your argument is no evidence? Right!!! How about logic? How about critical thinking? How about NO EVIDENCE? Hmmm

Actually I do have evidence and so does everyone else, as I have told you before and you have ignored that evidence because it does not suite your sensibilities. E=MC^2 proves that no omnipotent (infinite power/energy) being (Revelation 19:6 KJV) can exist in this universe because you exist.

Nope the universe is ***thought*** to be proof of existence of god by those who are not capable of rational and critical thinking and logic. By people who consider the thought and ignorance of bronze age understanding to be more valid that modern knowledge. By people who are unwilling to accept the facts that stare them in the face.

There is no evidence for the existence or non existence of a god. No evidence either way. Now I have no evidence for the existence of a Ferrari ignition key in my purse and guess what, there is NO Ferrari ignition key in my purse.

A question that no one YET knows the answer to, so its silly to guess, right? The thing is the science IS looking for the answer. Godbots arent, they are happy to wallow in their ignorance and continue believing their guess.

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.

•••
•••