It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in evolution debate

I would like to respond to the letter 'Recent letter offered no examples of Darwinian disingenuousness,' . He responds to an article with, 'He says evolution is 'so riddled with holes,' yet fails to provide a ... Full Story
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#105614 Dec 31, 2012
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
Sweetie, I don't know how familiar you are with the ability a crystal ball, but hit and miss is the way they go as well. That does not mean crystan balls have predictive capability. You could not make a prediction where it was important to do so and that was around whether or not the process of evolution should result in a non functional remnant.
You're projecting. You "predicted" 100% function yet require the complete and total opposite for TEH FALL. Which is why you attempt to portray evolution's beneficial mutations being false at the same time as "predicting" 100% function because you need to cover all bases to claim evolution is wrong. While everyone here understands your position is inherently hypocritical and internally contradictory (including your good self sweetie) your BS may work on the likes of Markie.
MazHere wrote:
Instead of babbling on why don't you tell me your predictions around non conding dna and its functionality? You still can't make one.
Actually we already have. And you were informed MONTHS ago. Since mutations provide us with beneficial, neutral and detrimental effects we predict a pattern of nested hierarchies based on common ancestry. Remember it's not whether or not the whole genome has function that's the important part, it's the pattern of biology which creationism can only "predict" after the fact.
MazHere wrote:
What don't you tell me why a deteriorating genome cannot possibly evidence of the fall? Why don't you articulate what these researchers suggest is happening in evolutionary terms? The answer is likely that you can't. You can only go quack quack.
Or we can simply point out that deteriation of the genome is incompatible with 100% genomic function. Oh, and also that it contradicts reality due to the fact that the human population is increasing rather than decreasing due to genetic deterioration, and that offspring that suffer a serious reproductive disadvantage due to detrimental mutations are generally the exception, not the rule. This is why you still have not been able to provide us with a date for when genetic deterioration will reach critical mass.
MazHere wrote:
Is it because I can't present a library full of outdated rubbish, contradictory data and a bunch of researchers prepared to knife each other for grant money.
Of course, it's all just a great big world-wide scientific conspiracy.
MazHere wrote:
To sprooke allegations of dishonesty is about the best I would expect if I were debating a 10 year old.
Well don't worry, I'm a little older. Hence I never leave my allegations baseless. Remember you were *demonstrated* to be a hypocritical liar on the other thread, and you have been here. As I was only here 5 minutes and noted the others had you already pegged for dishonest behaviour.

Ain't our fault you're stuck in your ways.

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Australia

#105615 Dec 31, 2012
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
BWA HA HA HA HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!! Oh man, you are one funny gal, ya know that Mazzy? Unintentional maybe, but still funny.
Explain to me again how a deteriorating genome is in your favour?
Explain to me again how any one can look a fool if evolutionists don't look a fool over their claims around junk dna.

Oh that's right! Deteriorating, become more compelex, less complex, no different, less choices, more choices, junk, not junk. It doesn't matter does it? It will all prove evolution, won't it.
TOE is a load of polly waffle.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#105616 Dec 31, 2012
MazHere wrote:
You have not rebutted a single thing I have said. What you have done is make this grandiose claim a mulitude of times. I can requote your rubbish and quacking.
Sure you can. In fact anyone can re-quote, just by using the handy little quote function built in to the forum. But what you couldn't do was answer my questions. What you COULD do was have your stuff addressed and then pretend months later that it never was.(shrug)
MazHere wrote:
For evolutionists to suggest that a creationist can't find any support or interpetation of data to suit their claims is the height of arrogance. You evos are an arrogant lot.
Again with the irony meter danger. But yeah, you can't find any support for creationism. Which is why you're limited to quotemining actual biological research by actual evolutionary biologists whose work you don't even believe in in the first place. So unlike yourself we can afford to be arrogant when we have the weight of reality on our side. Any word on that magic Jew yet?

Thought so.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#105617 Dec 31, 2012
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
Becuase I wanted to se what you lot were dribbling on about these days and I found it.
So in other words you were lying (again) when you said you didn't care what we though. Glad we straightened that out.

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Australia

#105618 Dec 31, 2012
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
You're projecting. You "predicted" 100% function yet require the complete and total opposite for TEH FALL. Which is why you attempt to portray evolution's beneficial mutations being false at the same time as "predicting" 100% function because you need to cover all bases to claim evolution is wrong. While everyone here understands your position is inherently hypocritical and internally contradictory (including your good self sweetie) your BS may work on the likes of Markie.
Do you understand that deterioration of the genome, eg accumulation of deleterious mutations, has NOTHING to do with non coding DNA being functional?

The only thing people here need to know is that you have no idea what you are talking about and that you hope no one else notices.

Level 2

Since: Jul 09

Location hidden

#105619 Dec 31, 2012
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
If you think there's a chance Earth may be cubic in shape then there's nothing further to be gained from interaction with you.
where does the bible claim the earth is cubic

flat - oval - disk - on 4 pillars -

but not cubic
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#105620 Dec 31, 2012
MazHere wrote:
Explain to me again how a deteriorating genome is in your favour?
It isn't. But since it isn't it's not a problem. If it were you could predict the date of genetic critical mass based on observable mutation rates. But then of course if you did that then you would contradict your claim of being able to predict 100% genome function if the genome was supposed to be deteriorating, hence constantly leaving us with *less* function.
MazHere wrote:
Explain to me again how any one can look a fool if evolutionists don't look a fool over their claims around junk dna.
Simples. Be a creationist.
MazHere wrote:
Oh that's right! Deteriorating, become more compelex, less complex, no different, less choices, more choices, junk, not junk. It doesn't matter does it? It will all prove evolution, won't it.
It does if it gives us a pattern of common ancestry. And it did. This was observed back in the fifties. It apparently hasn't reached creationists yet.
MazHere wrote:
TOE is a load of polly waffle.
Another way of saying it's theologically inconvenient. Newsflash - your baseless religious beliefs are irrelevant. Always have been. Sorry if you don't like it.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#105621 Dec 31, 2012
MazHere wrote:
Do you understand that deterioration of the genome, eg accumulation of deleterious mutations, has NOTHING to do with non coding DNA being functional?
Then by all means explain yourself. If the genome is deteriorating but the whole genome still has 100% function then the only other possibility is that the genome is constantly losing bases. You can't have deteriation without a loss of function. But unfortunately for you biologists have observed detrimental, neutral and beneficial mutations, which also include base insertions and duplication.
MazHere wrote:
The only thing people here need to know is that you have no idea what you are talking about and that you hope no one else notices.
Projection of the highest order. Meanwhile while you're ranting about evolution and getting everything wrong as usual (often deliberately) we're STILL waiting for the "scientific theory" of "an invisible magic Jew wizard didit".

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#105622 Dec 31, 2012
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
I love it when evos are gobsmacked and think ridicule is clever demonstrating they have no clue what they are talking about.
Keep it coming. It shows how stupid you are.
What's the data suggesting creationism?

What is the theory of creationism, and what does it explain?

What mechanisms are included in creationism?

What mathematical laws are derived from creationism that help benefit us?

What technology has been developed with the assistance of the creation theory?

What illnesses have been cured with the aid of the creation theory?

Most importantly, what is the theory? Aside from the assertion of "god dun it," of course.

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Australia

#105623 Dec 31, 2012
"KittenKoder" and her list of questions: Note again a lack of scientific engagement, just scratching around hoping for the best!

What's the data suggesting creationism?
I Have been talking about some but you are too arrogant to acknowledge it. What would you like a book or the libraries of twoodle and falsifications you can present?

What is the theory of creationism, and what does it explain?
That the universe has a beginning, plants were created before the creatures of the sea and evolutionists have screwed up birds and whales. Evolutionists pretend they were the first to think of their line up but they weren't.

What mechanisms are included in creationism?
Somatic change and adapatation that is limited as all data supports.

What mathematical laws are derived from creationism that help benefit us?
About as many as TOE. None.

What technology has been developed with the assistance of the creation theory?
Sanford is a prolific inventor with more than 32 issued patents. At Cornell Sanford and colleagues developed the "Biolistic Particle Delivery System" or so-called "gene gun".[3][4] He is the co-inventor of the Pathogen-derived Resistance (PDR) process and the co-inventor of the genetic vaccination process. He was given the "Distinguished Inventor Award" by the Central New York Patent Law Association in 1990 and 1995. He has founded two biotechnology companies, Sanford Scientific and Biolistics. In 1998 he retired on the proceeds from the sale of his biotech companies, and continued at Cornell as a courtesy associate professor

What illnesses have been cured with the aid of the creation theory?
None, the same as TOE. However prayer has been found to aid recovery. Research connects certain religious beliefs to increased prosocial behaviour.

Most importantly, what is the theory? Aside from the assertion of "god dun it," of course.
I separate the coalesecence of matter based on physics that identify energy can produce matter, just like evolutionists separate abiogenesis from TOE of which they have absolutley no idea about nor support for.

Oh Wow Kitten, you have gone from being a philosopher to an asker of questions. Well done! When do you suppose you may ever engage in some sort of scientific discourse for a novel idea?

Do you suppose if you can show I have about as little idea as you lot do that you are going to be sprookin gfrom a better platform?

Now how about you answer my questions? Or is this just about you trying to score irrelevant points that do nothing to detract from the fact that creationists are able to present support for their views, whether you like it or not.

It is like as if a creationist having some support for their view would be the end of the world for evolutionists. So ridiculous do you look after your junk dna and human knuckle walking fiasco that as far as I am concerned you will never recover your credibility.

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Australia

#105624 Dec 31, 2012
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Then by all means explain yourself. If the genome is deteriorating but the whole genome still has 100% function then the only other possibility is that the genome is constantly losing bases. You can't have deteriation without a loss of function. But unfortunately for you biologists have observed detrimental, neutral and beneficial mutations, which also include base insertions and duplication.
<quoted text>
Projection of the highest order. Meanwhile while you're ranting about evolution and getting everything wrong as usual (often deliberately) we're STILL waiting for the "scientific theory" of "an invisible magic Jew wizard didit".
I have demonstrated you are a crack pot Dude and have no idea what you are talking about. Would you like me to repost the crap you went on about showing your inabilty differentiating functional non coding dna from the accumualtion of deleterious mutations.

That was your big hero point a post ago. Now you want a scientific theory in the space of post when you can't present one with all the libraries of hubris you have at your disposal.

How about you just suck it up. Creos have got support for their paradign and they certianly don't need evolutionists acceptance. Its all red herrings. See I can prove it with BS like Kitten.

You should quit now before you loose the last of your credibility.

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#105625 Dec 31, 2012
MazHere wrote:
"KittenKoder" and her list of questions: Note again a ....
Somatic change and adapatation that is limited as all data supports.
What mathematical laws are derived from creationism that help benefit us?
About as many as TOE. None.
.....
Cropped your list of junk for space, not just because it's junk.

First, I asked what technology CREATIONISM has created, not what was invented by a creationist. Do you not get the difference?

Secondly, to the bit I left in:

http://arxiv.org/abs/1110.1038
http://classes.yale.edu/fractals/CA/GA/GACirc...
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1023%2FA%...
http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/login.jsp...
http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/login.jsp...

There's a lot more where those came from. You should be careful making blind assertions, especially to someone who has dealt with using these algorithms in person.

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#105626 Dec 31, 2012
MazHere wrote:
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 silly ones really are!
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/notrocketsc...
Funny how that "prediction" only came to be AFTER real scientists figured it out. Before then, there was no such prediction. Weird coincidence, eh?
MazHere wrote:
1. Creationist predictions and claims are continuing to be validated with 80% of the genome being found to be functional and the expectation that 100% of the genome likely to be functional.
This continuing 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 denial, suggest TOE never did or could make a prediction around non coding dna and deny that yet another evolutionary claim and irrefutable evidence for TOE is about to be thrown into that huge rubbish bin of evolutionary delusions past!
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/notrocketsc...
Oh, wait, are these the "peer-reviewed articles" you promised? I though you were going to present PEER-REVIEWED ARTICLES, not "peer-reviewed articles." Maybe you don't know the difference. ACTUAL SCIENCE appears in peer-reviewed articles. Apologetics, reality denial, and NUH UH! appear in "peer-reviewed articles." Any "peer-reviewed article" that doesn't follow the format of a REAL peer-reviewed article, and doesn't contain actual scientific experimentation, is NOT a real peer-reviewed article, but is rather sciency-sounding nonsense for the gullible to read so they can feel like science isn't leaving their Bronze Age superstitions in the dust.
MazHere wrote:
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...
Misunderstanding of "vestigial" doesn't disprove evolutionary theory.
MazHere wrote:
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 hubris supports TOE.
http://www.ehow.com/list_7182299_fossils-foun...
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v417/n68...
How does birds appearing AFTER land-based tetrapods in the fossil record support the Bible's claim that they came BEFORE land-based tetrapods? Run that one by us again, please.

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#105627 Dec 31, 2012
MazHere wrote:
What technology has been developed with the assistance of the creation theory?
Sanford is a prolific inventor with more than 32 issued patents. At Cornell Sanford and colleagues developed the "Biolistic Particle Delivery System" or so-called "gene gun".[3][4] He is the co-inventor of the Pathogen-derived Resistance (PDR) process and the co-inventor of the genetic vaccination process. He was given the "Distinguished Inventor Award" by the Central New York Patent Law Association in 1990 and 1995. He has founded two biotechnology companies, Sanford Scientific and Biolistics. In 1998 he retired on the proceeds from the sale of his biotech companies, and continued at Cornell as a courtesy associate professor
I'm just going to address this. Not a single thing you mentioned had to do with "creation theory." You didn't answer the question. Answer the question.
marksman11

Asheville, NC

#105628 Dec 31, 2012
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
Red herring continued.
Really? Are you really this unable to support your world view? Why do you even hold it?
marksman11

Asheville, NC

#105629 Dec 31, 2012
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>

Oh that's right! Deteriorating, become more compelex, less complex, no different, less choices, more choices, junk, not junk. It doesn't matter does it? It will all prove evolution, won't it.
TOE is a load of polly waffle.
What kills me is no matter what the evidence shows....it supports human from non-human evolution and they make things up as they go and slap the label "Scientific evidence on it" The scientific method be damned!!

"Evolution takes millions and millions of years to occur"....."What? The Cambrian explosion??"....Well, PUNCTUATED EQUALIBRIUM!!!! Even though PE has never been observed or tested.......The origin of life?.......Life is much to complex to have evolved naturally?.....PANSPERMIA!!!!! Which has absolutely no scientific evidence to back it up!!!!

Welcome to the group!

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Dubai, UAE

#105630 Dec 31, 2012
MazHere wrote:
What you fail to realize through those evogoggles is that if everything can be accommodated, no matter what surprises, anomalies and contradictions ones finds, then sweety, I hate to tell you the bad news, what you have is a philosophy, not a science. You have an 'anything goes' psuedo science at best.
I quite agree - a theory where everything is permissible is not a valid scientific theory.

Evolution is very specific in its predictions on the fossil record - nothing can appear before its possible antecedents, as that would violate the nested hierarchy.

Likewise the nested hierarchy of variation found within the genome must be consistent internally from test to test, AND consistent with the fossil record.

And in these tests, we find conformity with nature.

Junk/no junk is not a core prediction of evolution. Therefore its not a valid test. This does not mean there are no tests - it means you are basing your garbage on the wrong one!

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#105631 Dec 31, 2012
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>Really? Are you really this unable to support your world view? Why do you even hold it?
Her evading and ignoring my original topic, and posting red herrings, is actually her being unable to support her world view, that is the purpose of the red herring fallacy. So, you have that backwards, again.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Dubai, UAE

#105632 Dec 31, 2012
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
“It’s likely that 80 percent will go to 100 percent,” says Birney.“We don’t really have any large chunks of redundant DNA. This metaphor of junk isn’t that useful.”
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/notrocketsc...
And Birney himself admitted that "function" as he had reckoned it simply meant doing "something" even if that was coding useless RNA sequences. He also admitted that the necessary functional DNA - coding and control sequences for that coding, were probably going to end up at around 20%.

Level 5

Since: Apr 12

Taizhou, China

#105633 Dec 31, 2012
On MazHere Number 1:

If I understand MazHere correctly, she is arguing that humans carry more functional DNA than previously believed.
Therefore, the trend can be expected to continue to the point that junk DNA will be dismissed altogether.

I don't know how much of the cited study is true discovery and how much is mere deceptive word play, but let's give MazHere the benefit of the doubt and say that the research team has truly found important functions for DNA which had hitherto been dismissed as junk.
That still won't prove that junk DNA doesn't exist at all.
It would take more than that one study to prove that.
There is a biologist who claims to have bred birds with teeth by awakening DNA inherited from their reptilian ancestors.
If junk DNA doesn't explain this biologist's findings, I would like to know what does.

The extrapolation fallacy--I just love it.
On another forum in which I used to participate, there was a Creationist who gleefully reported to us any finding that a species was older than previously believed.
Apparently, if enough of these reports accumulated, that would prove that mammals, reptiles, amphibians, and birds all date from pre-Cambrian times.

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
Bobby Jindal: "I'm Not an Evolutionary Biologist" 15 min woodtick57 367
Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 29 min dirtclod 120,810
The Satanic Character of Social Darwinism 54 min The Dude 708
Darwin on the rocks 2 hr The Dude 358
Monkey VS Man Sun Bluenose 14
Charles Darwin's credentials and Evolution Sun TurkanaBoy 204
There is no scientific evidence whatsoever for ... Oct 17 Discord 431

Evolution Debate People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE