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 3,959)

Showing posts 79,161 - 79,180 of105,891
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#83712
Mar 29, 2013
 
Black Thunder 42 wrote:
<quoted text> Several places in history are completely out of sync with the accepted view of the intellectual and societal disposition of the proposed "evolution" of humans. I don't think ALL the evidence is being objectively considered, and is causing considerable difficulty in the formation of discovery of a proper timeline of evolution and involved factors...mostly because of control of the "funding" for research, and the need to be accepted academically, even knowing that the information and methods are in error.
What are these places in history...please be specific..
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#83713
Mar 29, 2013
 
Mark wrote:
At the core, I can see that the word "Design" doesn't work for you.
That's because it doesn't work. If it DID work you could explain exactly who or what did the designing, when it did it, where it did it and what the heck exactly it did.
Mark wrote:
When it's pointed out that basics like moon gravity, distance and mass are vital and you say it doesn’t matter because -"Size is irrelevant". A few more feet of tide and most of our crop bearing soil would be gone. That's simple geography but to you it's "irrelevant"!
Why yes, it IS irrelevant. Since life has been around FAR longer than harvesting.

Duh.
Mark wrote:
Have worked with a number of oil companies (still do) and never saw one worried about isotope dating. They use seismic equipment and well logs. Never heard of an archaeologist using long age nuc dating as they deal with the existence of man, which is way inside the usable range of isotope dating, they use C14. So you're not making any sense to me, other then showing me how little you know about the stuff you are posting about.
Of course, that's because all your personal anecdotes render literally hundreds of thousands of peer-reviewed literature moot. Because you are THAT important.
Mark wrote:
You can blame Jesus all you want. The fact that you refer to scientists you have never met as "liars" is also telling. I know these guys personally and there are no "liars for Jesus" among them. They all have made a real living in the real world with their brains and hard work outside the creation effort, so you may want to spare me your unfounded comments. Thats harsh but true.
I don't care if you personally met Jesus Himself. The RATE group are liars for Jesus, period. That's why they have no scientific credibility. And that's WHY the ONE thing they got right was the part where they OPENLY ADMIT ON THEIR OWN WEBSITE that they couldn't give a frak about science.

In the meantime you're still here doing the exact same thing (lying for Jesus) and have yet to address the fact that evidence is utterly superfluous to your position. Or indeed been able to explain the "scientific theory" of creationism. In the meantime we'll surely look forward to yet another irrelevant personal anecdote as if it means a damm.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#83714
Mar 29, 2013
 
Infinite Force wrote:
<quoted text>
My statement was not to expain speciation, it was to show you that the biological species concept is fixed.
Just as the astronomical planet concept is fixed.

Sorry, I mean was.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#83715
Mar 29, 2013
 
Infinite Force wrote:
<quoted text>
LOL! I'm doing fine, I see you haven't lost your sense of humor. How you been doing?
Groovy.

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#83716
Mar 29, 2013
 
Black Thunder 42 wrote:
<quoted text> Follows the same logic...don't you think?
the logic of evolution, yes. your theory mentioned favoring animals with light colored fur...(evolution) and ones that can molt or change their color s the seasons change would also support the fittest for survival passing on their genes...(evolution)

any questions?
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#83717
Mar 29, 2013
 
Infinite Force wrote:
<quoted text>
Ring secies does not disprove the biological species term. We just have conflicting views of what a species is.
I worry little about the fundie opinions of arbitrary labels. The fact is they demonstrate biological divergence as predicted by evolution.

“ Ah see's lanlubbers Cap'n BT!”

Level 1

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#83718
Mar 29, 2013
 
MikeF wrote:
42? Where ARE you getting your information?
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3...
From a paper 2 years more recent than yours.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1...

“Darwin was right..of course.”

Level 9

Since: Jun 11

Topanga

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#83719
Mar 29, 2013
 
Black Thunder 42 wrote:
<quoted text> Several places in history are completely out of sync with the accepted view of the intellectual and societal disposition of the proposed "evolution" of humans. I don't think ALL the evidence is being objectively considered, and is causing considerable difficulty in the formation of discovery of a proper timeline of evolution and involved factors...mostly because of control of the "funding" for research, and the need to be accepted academically, even knowing that the information and methods are in error.
You're full of crap.

What fundie site do you get your crappy error ridden data from??
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#83720
Mar 29, 2013
 
Infinite Force wrote:
<quoted text>
You're delusinal by saying I have zero evidence. I did not assume design. The fixed biological species concepts is the evidence for the origin of species. It eliminates species giving birth to new species oover time thru natural processes. Now apply deductive logic to the ONLY two possible explanations for the origin of species. Hence, the name of this subject article (evolution vs creation) is the ONLY possible explanations to the origin of species.
You are incorrect. There is evolution, creationism, or an as yet unknown third option that no-one's thought of yet. So what we see is merely yourself setting creationism up as the default answer should evolution happen to be wrong.

THAT is why you have no evidence.
Infinite Force wrote:
Once again, fixed biological species logically deducts/elliminates the descent of a new species originating from the same species which evoution proposes. The conclusion based on scientific evidence (fixed biological species term) and deductive reasoning is creation for the origin of species. I doubt you will understand this because you don't even have a sound definition for species.
Neither do you. But what IS observed is that life changes over time. The ONLY thing that would prevent this would be if the Earth was say, oh, only 6,000 years old. And since it ISN'T...
Gillette

Fairfield, IA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#83721
Mar 29, 2013
 
Ah, 3:30 Central USA time, about 8:00 in the evening England time.

The Dude is home from work, has had dinner, and sits down at his computer for a pleasant evening of swatting Christian creationist kooks!:)
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#83722
Mar 29, 2013
 
Infinite Force wrote:
<quoted text>
Correction: three possible explanations to the origin of species in accordance to the stratta/fossil and biological species.
1. creation.
2. biological species given rise to new species (evolution).
3. spontaneous generation to ALL known different biologica species found on earth today and in the strata/fossil record.
Only possible answers to the origin of species!
Incorrect.

4.- Currently unknown.

However this post does not address mine, which is that common design has no evidence nor makes any testable predictions.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#83723
Mar 29, 2013
 
Infinite Force wrote:
<quoted text>
You are observing a fixed biological species with variation over time and that's it. The biolical species will ALWAYS remain the same. This fixed species concept follows the constant principle found in the laws of nature. You do know the laws of nature is fixed and universal don't you? Proposing an un-fixed concept violates these principles found in the laws of nature. Thought you should know this.
The orbit of Mercury breaks the "law of gravity". Thought you should know this.

This is why I don't take your "principles found in the 'laws' of nature" claims very seriously.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#83724
Mar 29, 2013
 
Cybele wrote:
<quoted text>
Well according to your previous posts on this thread, there are evidence for evolution that have been tested repeatedly, so what happens when a mutant species reproduce?
They grow up and reproduce themselves too.

You ARE born with over 100 mutations that neither of your parents have. Just because you posted a linky pointing to mutations that cause infertility does not mean ALL mutations cause infertility.

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#83725
Mar 29, 2013
 
Gillette wrote:
Ah, 3:30 Central USA time, about 8:00 in the evening England time.
The Dude is home from work, has had dinner, and sits down at his computer for a pleasant evening of swatting Christian creationist kooks!:)
Simply smashing job...ol' boy!
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#83726
Mar 29, 2013
 
Infinite Force wrote:
<quoted text>
Like I said, the bird ring species was not observed diversifying from one to two are more species which formed your so called ring species... YOU ASSUME DESCENT WITH MODIFICATION AND ORIGIN OF DIFFERENT ring species. Once again, the creation of a ring species has not been observed by the biological species concept.
Ring species are *evidence* of descent with modification. This is reality. It is observed. What you are doing is moving back the goalposts to allow a "little bit" of evolution, but not too much that it violates your philosophical/theological beefs with reality.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#83727
Mar 29, 2013
 
Infinite Force wrote:
<quoted text>
Correction and my apologies for the mis-explanation. I mean when it comes to a biological reproductive species the laws of nature governs all of them the same with no exceptions. This means if the biological species concept applies to one then it applies to all biological reproductive species with no exception. You saying that the ring species disprove my biological species concept and now I want the evidence of a reproductive species starting as one species diversing into your ring species using the biological species concept. I don't want your similarity assumption species term, I want this proved through the same species term I am using. You cannot use a species term that is based on pure assumption to disqaulify my specoes term that is built on pure observation.
We don't HAVE to stick to your definitions, because your opinions are irrelevant. Not that you've even explained exactly what your definition of species is.(shrug)
Gillette

Fairfield, IA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#83728
Mar 29, 2013
 
Black Thunder 42 wrote:
<quoted text> From a paper 2 years more recent than yours.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1...
Quotes from your paper. Support OUR postion, not yours, right?

Conclusion
Nine families of chimpanzee endogenous retroviruses have been transpositionally active since chimpanzees and humans diverged from a common ancestor. Seven of these transpositionally active families have orthologs in humans, one of which has also been transpositionally active in humans since the human-chimpanzee divergence about six million years ago. Comparative analyses of orthologous regions of the human and chimpanzee genomes have revealed that a significant portion of INDEL variation between chimpanzees and humans is attributable to endogenous retroviruses and may be of evolutionary significance.

Of the 42 families of chimpanzee endogenous retroviruses identified in this study, 40 were found to have orthologues in the human genome, including 9 that were identified in this study for the first time [14]

A member of only one class II family, CERV 30 (HERV K10), has been transpositionally active since the divergence of chimps and humans from a common ancestor.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#83729
Mar 29, 2013
 
Black Thunder 42 wrote:
<quoted text> Where can you show that has happened as factual in human population?
Humans have not diverged enough yet to cause speciation. However their genetic variance *is* observed.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#83730
Mar 29, 2013
 
xxxooxxx wrote:
<quoted text>
So how would the information from the outside world, such as leaves on a tree in relation to a giraffe growing a longer neck to reach a food source come about to mutate the genes?
It's been nearly two years and you fundies still argue against goal-directed evolution.

:-/
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#83731
Mar 29, 2013
 
xxxooxxx wrote:
<quoted text>
the implication was that a giraffe grows a longer neck by evolutionary means over a period of time to reach a food source.
I asked how the information is transferred from the physical world to the biological construct of giraffe.
do you know or not?
Yes, we know that intended goals are not what drives evolution. Giraffe developed longer necks. If they didn't they simply wouldn't be eating that food at the top of the tree.(shrug)

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

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 79,161 - 79,180 of105,891
|
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.

•••
•••
•••
•••