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
55,621 - 55,640 of 115,129 Comments Last updated 8 min ago

“Darwin was right..of course.”

Level 9

Since: Jun 11

Tenerife

#59561 Nov 17, 2012
Sorry for the typos in the above post. Really late here...really tired.

Level 2

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

#59562 Nov 18, 2012
Drew Smith wrote:
<quoted text>
Where is your evidence that modern Germans can understand Old English? We're still waiting.
Between old English and modern English, which of them is more closer to German?
Answer this question sincerely.
I am waiting.

Level 2

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

#59563 Nov 18, 2012
Drew Smith wrote:
<quoted text>
Where is your evidence that modern Germans can understand Old English? We're still waiting.
Evidence?
If you are sincere with your self. It was stated on the site that, old English is more closer to German than modern English.
By this implication.
Old English is more Germanic than modern English.
frogmann

Pittsburgh, PA

#59564 Nov 18, 2012
youtube.com/watch... …FM stupid compared???? unlikely evolution vs creation?

this a goof topic creating vs birth and old age death?
I dunno?
FREE SERVANT

Bellevue, WA

#59565 Nov 18, 2012
Languages apparently branch and splinter off the farther a field they range. The peoples which comprise Anglo-Saxondom by in large worship Jesus Christ. The Anglo-Saxon word for "good" and refers to divine goodness is identical to how English speaking people say GOD. In most cases a person who knows Hebrew well can understand English, Hebrew is faintly visible in its offspring though. The original language of our Creator would be the common ancestor and Greek and Latin are merely grandparents which was scrambled during the output of God at the tower of Babel. Among the original words and terms leading to this conclusion are the most common ones like MAMA, PAPA and SACK which come from EMA or ABBA (mom and pop).

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#59566 Nov 18, 2012
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
Denial is not a good look. Anyone that suggests that big bang theory has no concerns has already demonstrated the level of their true scientific base.
Look at you quacking about my straw men. Either these idiots know what they are saying or they do not.
This is what you are hiding your head i the sand over.
University Of Alabama In Huntsville (2006, September 5). Big Bang's Afterglow Fails Intergalactic 'Shadow' Test. ScienceDaily.
No shadows, no big bang. Is that too scientific for you? Perhaps you can quote Womans Day.
"The various theories that exist on the early universe are, therefore, experimental and have not been empirically verified. The direct measurement of gravitational waves would enable us to look back to the first billionth of the first second after the Big Bang and thereby obtain completely new insights into the universe."
http://www.mpg.de/4333311/background
The conclusion of this lecture is that the universe has not existed forever. Rather, the universe, and time itself, had a beginning in the Big Bang, about 15 billion years ago. The beginning of real time, would have been a singularity, at which the laws of physics would have broken down.
http://www.hawking.org.uk/the-beginning-of-ti...
Words from man himself....... If you disagree you should go give Hawkins a mouth full.
And the big one that everyone should know is this, Hawkins knows his physics break down at the singularity. Of course that is not a problem for these scientific types with an assumption to sell off as science. A stuff up at the base is easily hand waved away, just as long as all the research chooks in the chook pen are happy.

Please learn some real science from real scientists and come back when you can do more than quote crap from antiscience, fundy, creotard sites.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#59567 Nov 18, 2012
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
Do you mean like over 150 years of human knucklewalking ancestry was evidence that turned to myth on the back of one single fossil find? Or would you like to discuss the multitude of common ancestors that have never surfaced when you discuss myths? How about the myth of 1% difference between the chimp and human, or the revolving door of human ancestors? How about the myth of single celled LUCA, the story of a tree stumped by HGT?
Archaeologists have uncovered what appears to be the foundation of the Tower of Babel within the ancient city ruins of Babylon. The base is square, 91 metres along each side, with earthen embankments.
http://www.world-mysteries.com/newgw/gw_shaye...
As for Adam and Eve...
You would have to go back in time only 2,000 to 5,000 years — and probably on the low side of that range — to find somebody who could count every person alive today as a descendant.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,201908,00...
We all know that one can find some research to support just about anything one wants. We can also find heaps of woffle to challenge any other. You can also likely find some research to support whatever you wish to support. Isn't theoretical science great????
Algorithmic population size, mutation rates and many other values are unknown insertion values tweaked to support any status quo. Indeed even biased evolutionary research points to a single male and female common ancestor. Indeed the dates for mteve and Yadam are based on assumptive algorithms with assumptive and unknown insertion values. Evolutionary researchers assume the above dates relate to extra cohorts and assume that advanced culture also coincidently appeared at around the same time.
Do you suppose Darwin proposed TOE as a process orchestrated by God?
Is it not so, that the majority of evolutionists need a naturalistic interpretation of any data that does not evoke the hand of any God?

What pseudoscience outhouse do you dig this crap out of?

Just to pick one item, Mitochondrial Even lived over 150 thousand years ago. Y-Chromosomal Adam lived over 60 thousand years ago.

The MRCA was about 2,000 years ago.

There have been human populations and active human population centers going back over 100,000 years.

Sorry. Check facts next time.

“I started out with nothing”

Level 6

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

#59569 Nov 18, 2012
Charles Idemi wrote:
Again, if old English is similar or closely related to German and Icelandic, that means, the Germans and the people of Iceland will definitely understand old English unlike modern English.
Paranoia is the excuse of the delusional

“I started out with nothing”

Level 6

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

#59570 Nov 18, 2012
Charles Idemi wrote:
Again, if old English is similar or closely related to German and Icelandic, that means, the Germans and the people of Iceland will definitely understand old English unlike modern English.
Yes I told you about this two weeks ago.

Old English can be understood by those who speak old northern European languages

However just like English the old northern European languages have evolved

Since: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

#59573 Nov 18, 2012
MazHere wrote:
Your links says nothing to refute the fact that single celled LUCA was killed by HGT.
And this is a fact based on what evidence?

Since: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

#59574 Nov 18, 2012
Where is your evidence that modern Germans can understand Old English? We're still waiting.
Charles Idemi wrote:
Now, between old English and modern English, which of them is more closer to German?
Answer this questions sincerely.
Answer mine first. You're evading the question that you were asked.

Since: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

#59575 Nov 18, 2012
Where is your evidence that modern Germans can understand Old English? We're still waiting.
Charles Idemi wrote:
It was stated on the site that, old English is more closer to German than modern English.
No, it said that it was closer to "modern German and Icelandic" in "most respects".
Charles Idemi wrote:
By this implication. Old English is more Germanic than modern English.
You're engaged in a red herring. The issue wasn't whether Old English was Germanic (or even whether it was "more Germanic" than any other particular language), but whether or not modern Germans could understand Old English.

Provide the evidence to support your claim that modern Germans can understand Old English.

We're *still* waiting.

Since: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

#59576 Nov 18, 2012
FREE SERVANT wrote:
The peoples which comprise Anglo-Saxondom by in large worship Jesus Christ.
The Anglo-Saxons were Germanic pagans until the 7th or 8th century.
FREE SERVANT wrote:
The Anglo-Saxon word for "good" and refers to divine goodness is identical to how English speaking people say GOD.
The words "god" and "good" in Anglo-Saxon weren't pronounced the same way, and their origins are unrelated. Nor did the word "good" in Anglo-Saxon have anything to do with "divine" goodness.
FREE SERVANT wrote:
In most cases a person who knows Hebrew well can understand English, Hebrew is faintly visible in its offspring though.
Hebrew is a Semitic language. English is an Indo-European language. They aren't related, and a Hebrew speaker will not be able to understand English.

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Everton, Australia

#59577 Nov 18, 2012
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
What pseudoscience outhouse do you dig this crap out of?
Just to pick one item, Mitochondrial Even lived over 150 thousand years ago. Y-Chromosomal Adam lived over 60 thousand years ago.
The MRCA was about 2,000 years ago.
There have been human populations and active human population centers going back over 100,000 years.
Sorry. Check facts next time.
Oh dear, here is yet another evolutionist that can't tell an evo site from a creationist site.

Nonw of this is crp lovey.

You evos refer to your own crap and your own crap can easily be used against you because the lot of you have no idea what science really is.

The profeesor started this thread on the back of you evo own refurte to your crap claim that Junk dna proves evolution. Now that you have found non coding dna to be functional,this functionality is now meant to also prove evolution.

Evos shoved thos crap down creos throats ad nauseum. "Look" these evo geese quacked, "why did God make useless dna, 98% of our dna IS USELESS" quack quack.

This week, 30 research papers, including six in Nature and additional papers published online by Science, sound the death knell for the idea that our DNA is mostly littered with useless bases. A decade-long project, the Encyclopedia of DNA Elements (ENCODE), has found that 80% of the human genome serves some purpose, biochemically speaking. Beyond defining proteins, the DNA bases highlighted by ENCODE specify landing spots for proteins that influence gene activity, strands of RNA with myriad roles, or simply places where chemical modifications serve to silence stretches of our chromosomes.

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/337/6099/11...

BTW evolution news is not a creo site, just in case you are too ignorant to know.

Then you lot went searching for ghosts and found tiny sequences that you assume are related to virus and called them ervs that were also useless remants, again only to find that ervs also provide vital function.

Creationists have always predicted that if God created there would be no useless DNA.

Still evos will quack now about the 20% that is supposedly non functional.

Well here is a prediction you can all shove down your own throats and it goes like this...

Over time these evolutionary inculcated boofheads that call themselves scientists will eventually find that there is no junk in dna and that every bit of dna has some function.

This research can only be performed with credible research that has actually looked into the long term useage of any genomic material. Unlike the crap they present at present where they shoot off their gobs to create headlines and get research grants and don't really care if their results are misleading or mean anyuthign at all. eg 98% of dna is junk.

The concern for evo quackers is that just about anything you present is no more than flavour of the month, may be falsified tomorrow, and that is what the entire empire of evolutionary theory is based on. That is also why TOE adherants are no more than a form of faith with their own atheist or theist slant.

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Everton, Australia

#59578 Nov 18, 2012
Drew Smith wrote:
<quoted text>
And this is a fact based on what evidence?
The links I have already provided that you obviously are totally ignorant of.

This is not rocket science lovey. This info has been around for ages. I should not have to be telling you this stuff.

While dealing with gene loss is tricky, it is not an insurmountable hurdle — it just means reconstructing LUCA will be peppered with a lot of educated guesswork, and probably a few gaps. But gene swapping is another matter altogether — it threatens to fell the tree of life, and consign LUCA to the dustbin.6,7,8

http://www.actionbioscience.org/newfrontiers/...

".. it is no longer safe to assume that those were the only lateral gene transfers that occurred after the first eukaryotes arose. Only in later, multicellular eukaryotes do we know of definite restrictions on horizontal gene exchange, such as the advent of separated (and protected) germ cells...

If there had never been any lateral gene transfer, all these individual gene trees would have the same topology (the same branching order), and the ancestral genes at the root of each tree would have all been present in the last universal common ancestor, a single ancient cell. But extensive transfer means that neither is the case: gene trees will differ (although many will have regions of similar topology) and there would never have been a single cell that could be called the last universal common ancestor..."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horizontal_gene_...

Evo researchers are now wasting their grant money scratching around for some organelle.

So the prediction of a single celled LUCA has been falsified. Failed predictions are no problem for evos. After all they can wave that magic wand and find a plethora of excuses for thier failed predictions and history of falsifications. Most of you evos are too ignorant or scared to even admit to the facts of your history. The rest have no clue and just read the glossy magazine articles that never show the warts.

That's when we get bright sparks requesting peer reviewed and pay for view research...it is because that many of you truly have no clue what is going on in recent research.

“Darwin was right..of course.”

Level 9

Since: Jun 11

Tenerife

#59579 Nov 18, 2012
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
What pseudoscience outhouse do you dig this crap out of?
Just to pick one item, Mitochondrial Even lived over 150 thousand years ago. Y-Chromosomal Adam lived over 60 thousand years ago.
The MRCA was about 2,000 years ago.
There have been human populations and active human population centers going back over 100,000 years.
Sorry. Check facts next time.
Hello Dogen,
Do you notice that 'MazHere' is acting like and using the same materials as many of the other recent posters on the Evo Debate Forums? I think there's a school somewhere that's training creotards. At least 2 of them are from Australia. I have heard that there's a particularly rabid bunch of fundamentalists around Adelaide

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#59580 Nov 18, 2012
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>

So the prediction of a single celled LUCA has been falsified. Failed predictions are no problem for evos. After all they can wave that magic wand and find a plethora of excuses for thier failed predictions and history of falsifications. Most of you evos are too ignorant or scared to even admit to the facts of your history. The rest have no clue and just read the glossy magazine articles that never show the warts.
That's when we get bright sparks requesting peer reviewed and pay for view research...it is because that many of you truly have no clue what is going on in recent research.
You have disproven the concept of LUCA!?

Well you better alert the press and your Nobel Prize will very shortly be in the mail.

Don't you love it when creatards make this sort of claim with nothing to back them up except for a scientific article that they did not understand?

Since: Sep 12

Fort Worth, TX

#59581 Nov 18, 2012
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>You have disproven the concept of LUCA!?

Well you better alert the press and your Nobel Prize will very shortly be in the mail.

Don't you love it when creatards make this sort of claim with nothing to back them up except for a scientific article that they did not understand?
What I find funny is how much faith science puts in a Big Bang and evolution yet still have no idea how it was done. Yes they say evolution but what they mean is adaptation which is what happens in nature. The very idea of Darwinism is racist sexist and wrong. For those people of the religion of evolution out there show me one fossil of a human between the stage of ape to man just one full set of remains.

Since: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

#59582 Nov 18, 2012
And this is a fact based on what evidence?
MazHere wrote:
The links I have already provided that you obviously are totally ignorant of.
Where in any of the links you provided does it say that the existence of HGT has "killed" the idea of the LUCA?

I do hope you realize that the LUCA was a *population*, and not a single individual organism? Yes? You do understand that?

Now, tell us again how HGT "kills" that idea?

Since: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

#59583 Nov 18, 2012
Bat Foy wrote:
they say evolution but what they mean is adaptation which is what happens in nature.
What is the difference between "evolution" and "adaptation"?
Bat Foy wrote:
The very idea of Darwinism is racist sexist and wrong.


How exactly is it "racist" or "sexist"?
Bat Foy wrote:
For those people of the religion of evolution out there show me one fossil of a human between the stage of ape to man just one full set of remains.
Why would it have to be a "full set"?

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.

Weird Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
For Dear FlowerChild (Dec '07) 5 min Flower-Child 23,817
Fergson Police Dept. 6 min reebie 310
What are you thinking about now? (Jun '10) 9 min misty1978 18,457
A six word game (Dec '08) 9 min Junket 17,455
6 letter word ...change one letter game (Oct '08) 21 min whatimeisit 25,814
What ?? are you thinking about NOW? 2014 32 min liam cul8r 340
Make A Sentance out of a 5 letter word. (Nov '09) 32 min whatimeisit 29,143
What's your tip for the day? 43 min reebie 794
What song are you listening to right now? (Apr '08) 3 hr wichita-rick 145,087
Texas Governor Rick Perry Indicted 5 hr Bill 221
•••
Enter and win $5000
•••

Weird People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••