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
56,181 - 56,200 of 114,536 Comments Last updated 20 min ago

“Waytogo”

Since: Oct 09

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#60141
Nov 23, 2012
 
If creation is real who created the creator? I mean if nothing can just POOF into being a creator cant POOF into being either.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#60142
Nov 23, 2012
 
You_tube_dude_ wrote:
<quoted text>
Evidence of creationism is simply this...."Faith".
Faith is not evidence. So you are claiming that there is no evidence for creationism. I agree.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#60143
Nov 23, 2012
 
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
Unfortunately, the evolutionary fiasco played out like the changing scenes and scenarios that support the overarching TOE is much like any bed time story and cannot be proven to not exist. That is why TOE is virtually unfalsifiable and does not meet the a credible standard of falsifiability.
Hence, my question in relation to evolutionists predictions around non coding dna. What supports TOE? If in 50 years time it is demonstrated that all of the genome is functional, as creationists predict, what then? Does that mean TOE is flse?
Not on Darwins death bed! Hence although TOE can make a few scant predictions, it is virtually unfalsifiable and has little predictability.
All faiths can interpret data to suit themselves and come up with their own algorithmic magic to support themselves.
I think to be closed to only one view is problematic.
The thing is it seriously looks like creos are on better tracks than evos.
General creationist predictions on junk dna and so called vestigal organs are being supported more as time goes on. That appears to be a fact. These are stable predictions.
If proven in time, I suggest evolutionists will have lost a huge support for evolutionary theory, despite any handwaving they come up with to explain it.
Maz, you misunderstand what evolution has said about "junk DNA" from the start. Yes, it is easy to debunk something if you use straw man arguments. So far the idea of junk DNA in no way goes against the theory of evolution. Much of the code seemed to be noncoding. Now when we look at it closer it is "differently" coding. Much like vestigial organs, organs may lose their original purpose but that does not mean that they are totally unused. The same occurs with DNA as the species evolves. DNA is not exactly the same as a circuit that can be switched off, so when a gene is "turned off" it very often still has a use. The experts in DNA would not agree with you in any way at all. So if the person who understand DNA the best don't have a problem with non-coding DNA why should someone who does not understand DNA?(That means you)
anonymous

Franklin, PA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#60144
Nov 23, 2012
 
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
This is what Charles said "People really can say all sort of things, whether true or false.
But we can not rule out the existence of spirits and demons.
They do exist."
Charles is being reasonable here. He suggests one has no evidence to rule them out. Then you call him a liar. He is not a liar. If there is no evidence to the contrary then one is no more delusional believing in a God than evos are for beliving in common ancestors that you have never seen.
By the way....Seeing that you want to talk philosophy instead of science, here is some for you......
Importantly, this has a direct bearing on the question of whether humans and other living creatures have souls. As Kant pointed out over 200 years ago, everything we experience – including all the colors, sensations and objects we perceive – are nothing but representations in our mind. Space and time are simply the mind's tools for putting it all together. Now, to the amusement of idealists, scientists are beginning dimly to recognize that those rules make existence itself possible. Indeed, the experiments above suggest that objects only exist with real properties if they are observed. The results not only defy our classical intuition, but suggest that a part of the mind – the soul – is immortal and exists outside of space and time.
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/biocentri...
You would rather think of yourself as a souless ape. Congratulations!
Charles said "they do exist" without any proof. There's nothing philosophical or reasonable about it. He's parking himself into the middle of a discussion and dictating truth to us. He's a liar.

Now, as concerns souls, what IS a soul and why do Christians insist that humans have them? You're right. I don't believe in them. It's all just another myth. Generally, I write it off as an attempt to exploit people's fear of death but it also is used to rationalize exploitation of the natural world and even the human world among some zealots.

Demonstrate evidence of a soul, or move on.
anonymous

Franklin, PA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#60145
Nov 23, 2012
 
Charles Idemi wrote:
<quoted text> Herds?
Without the past, there is no present.
Your ancestors did that as well.
Without your ancestors, there is no you.
That was the civilisation then.
I don't "owe" anything to civilization. As I said, you just don't get it. You never will.

Level 2

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#60146
Nov 23, 2012
 
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
I really though everyone was more sane that wolfie until Charlie Idiot came along
Do you know where wolfie has got to?, I’ve not come across his distinctive drivel for a few weeks?
You are indeed the best of all idiots.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#60147
Nov 23, 2012
 
NikkiShae wrote:
<quoted text>
Ah the power of God... Amazing how he/she/it can miraculously conform to your position without a shred of reliable evidence.
Aye, God is servant to its worshippers.

Apparently.
anonymous

Franklin, PA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#60148
Nov 23, 2012
 
Charles Idemi wrote:
<quoted text> I can see, you were there when he was dying.
Interesting?
What does Isaac Newton's death have to do with anything? Why would my witnessing his death have any bearing on the topic?

Isaac Newton was a heretic who did not believe in the holy trinity. Somehow, he made it through life without being exposed but he probably was not happy with the confinement that the politics of his day forced on him. He spent a good part of his latter days researching religion and alchemy. He also is suspected to have had Asperger syndrome and may have developed Mercury poisoning through his alchemical pursuits.

That's something you can look up on Wikipedia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_Newton
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#60149
Nov 23, 2012
 
MazHere wrote:
You have not refuted anything. I do not, and have never run away from anything. It is you evos that refuse to discuss science and use scientific theory to support your point, that is if you had one, which you don't.
I made a claim and you come up with this vague woffle.
Look at the discussion now. It has turned to philosophy. I only want to talk science. It is usually evos that say creos don't want to talk science and all you evos appear to be doing is scurrying as far away from science as possible.
Every statement I have made I can support from your own researchers.
Only if you're a total hypocrite.(shrug) You can't claim evolution is wrong because you've found some evolution science which proves it wrong oh and just ignore the part where the evolutionary biologist disagrees with the assertion that evolution is wrong therefore GODDIDIT WITH MAGIC.

We keep getting silly fundies claiming geology proves the flood therefore geology is wrong and physics proves the Earth is not old therefore physics is wrong and chemistry proves the Earth is young therefore chemistry is wrong.

Therefore Goddidit with magic.

It's dumb.
MazHere wrote:
If all you can do is say ' TOE is right because they said so, then I say, that 'they' have been wrong many many times before.eg human knucklewalking ancestry, junk dna, 2 turned to three domains of life, the death of single celled LUCA, brain size tied to bipedalism, Mendellian inheritance being the only form of inheritance refuted by HGT and epigentic inheritance etc.
I can support the scientific statements I make in previous posts and here.
The consortium has assigned some sort of function to roughly 80% of the genome, including more than 70,000 ‘promoter’ regions — the sites, just upstream of genes, where proteins bind to control gene expression — and nearly 400,000 ‘enhancer’ regions that regulate expression of distant genes
http://www.nature.com/news/encode-the-human-e...
I have stated, in line with the thread topic, that evos have woffled on about junk dna being absolute proof of evolution. That claim is slowly turning to mud. Toe is made of these little balls of rot that are offered as support but are no more than flavour of the month.
That's because you're arguing against a straw-man.
MazHere wrote:
A creationist prediction is, and has always been, that in time it will be found that all dna will be found to be functional. The same goes for vestigial organs.
Chicken teeth. The result of non-coding DNA. "Junk DNA" is an unfortunate term now misused by creationists.
MazHere wrote:
This prediction is being validated as time goes on as any good prediction should. This is opposed to evolutionary theory that generally comprises flavour of the month.
So what say you evos about junk dna? What supports TOE? Some junk, no junk, all junk, how much junk?????? TOE is an anything goes theory with the hit and miss predictability of a crystal ball.
Toe is a philosophy of faith (No need for God) just like any other and is, just like any other faith, trying to find some support for its credibility. Theist evos just have their own slant and IDers are somewhere in the middle.
Evolution is not atheism. I demonstrated evolution for you on this ver thread. So far you've not addressed it. But then it doesn't matter anyway since your alternative is merely Goddidit with magic.

You lost long before you even came here.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#60150
Nov 23, 2012
 
MazHere wrote:
This is what Charles said "People really can say all sort of things, whether true or false.
But we can not rule out the existence of spirits and demons.
They do exist."
Charles is being reasonable here. He suggests one has no evidence to rule them out. Then you call him a liar. He is not a liar. If there is no evidence to the contrary then one is no more delusional believing in a God than evos are for beliving in common ancestors that you have never seen.
Chuck IS a liar, but that's beside the point in this case. However Charles in this case too is being unreasonable. He made a claim with zero evidence. Scientifically speaking, the existence of spirits and demons cannot be ruled out. But without evidence they cannot be ruled in either.

So until he can provide objective testable scientific evidence to support his claim there is no reason to lend any credence to his claims.
MazHere wrote:
By the way....Seeing that you want to talk philosophy instead of science, here is some for you......
Importantly, this has a direct bearing on the question of whether humans and other living creatures have souls. As Kant pointed out over 200 years ago, everything we experience – including all the colors, sensations and objects we perceive – are nothing but representations in our mind. Space and time are simply the mind's tools for putting it all together. Now, to the amusement of idealists, scientists are beginning dimly to recognize that those rules make existence itself possible. Indeed, the experiments above suggest that objects only exist with real properties if they are observed. The results not only defy our classical intuition, but suggest that a part of the mind – the soul – is immortal and exists outside of space and time.
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/biocentri...
You would rather think of yourself as a souless ape. Congratulations!
Unfortunately when one looks at the actual paper there is nothing about Quantum interference of large organic molecules to suggest the existence of the soul. Of course internet being what it is, and that even includes popular websites directed at Joe-Public, it is inevitable that complicated subjects like quantum physics is twisted by some wishful thinking crank who thinks it supports quantum woo. And this is precisely what you've got a case of right here.

Besides, even if it DID prove spirituality it's quite obvious it's proving the existence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#60151
Nov 23, 2012
 
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
I really though everyone was more sane that wolfie until Charlie Idiot came along
Do you know where wolfie has got to?, I’ve not come across his distinctive drivel for a few weeks?
Oh, he usually comes back. And perhaps this time he'll have another Bigfoot carcass.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#60152
Nov 23, 2012
 
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
So I gather that seeing as no evolutionist here can defend their theory I suggest that the conclusion to the deabte is that evolutionsists really have no clue.
They can talk alot, make big claims and point to mountains of outdated speculative rubbish. What they can't do is defend thier stance in the evolution vs creation debate with any more than 'they said so' and a gutful of philosophical rhetoric. EVOLUTIONISTS...YOU LOOSE!
I DID defend it. You haven't addressed it yet. You didn't this time, and you didn't when I presented it to you the first time. And neither did any of your buddies on here when I presented it to them a dozen times before that. Bub, you already lost when you came here. Go back to 885, read it again, then after that then maybe we can discuss ERV's next. Nothing philosophical about evolution, only testable scientific evidence.

Besides Maz, you're "scientific alternative" is GODDIDIT WITH MAGIC! So even if we PRETEND for a moment that your mighty mega-brain had falsified evolution all would need to do is say "Well hey! You can't prove your BS and just invoke magic so we can use magic too! And our magic is better than yours so there! I WINZ!!!"

Duh.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#60153
Nov 23, 2012
 
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes Gods creation is intelligent...But no molecules to man, my friend....
We may also be special, despite the Copernican principle.....
Mathematicians’ theory means Earth may be the center of the universe
http://wallacegsmith.wordpress.com/2010/10/22...
Why YES! OF COURSE! Some random religious apologist on the net certainly knows what he's talking about! He just can't get his religious opinions published in scientific journals because of the evil atheist evolutionist world-wide conspiracy!!!

>:-(
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#60154
Nov 23, 2012
 
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
As I said previously you lot are hiding behind philosophy and trying to score fruitless points. The point is there is no evidence to suggest there is no God, so stop chasing your tail into philosophical conundrums and walkes doesn the garden path of evasion.
Don't have any philosophical conundrums.(shrug) Philosophy is irrelevant to science.

There's no evidence to suggest there is no God, but there's no scientific evidence to suggest there IS either.

And by the same token, there's no evidence to suggest there is no Flying Spaghetti Monster.
MazHere wrote:
What's up?????????? Is science too hard for you evolutionists to get your head around?
Not at all. It's only too hard for creationists. That's why they prefer Goddidit with magic.

Can't get much simpler than that.(shrug)
anonymous

Franklin, PA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#60155
Nov 23, 2012
 
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Chuck IS a liar, but that's beside the point in this case. However Charles in this case too is being unreasonable. He made a claim with zero evidence. Scientifically speaking, the existence of spirits and demons cannot be ruled out. But without evidence they cannot be ruled in either.
So until he can provide objective testable scientific evidence to support his claim there is no reason to lend any credence to his claims.
<quoted text>
Unfortunately when one looks at the actual paper there is nothing about Quantum interference of large organic molecules to suggest the existence of the soul. Of course internet being what it is, and that even includes popular websites directed at Joe-Public, it is inevitable that complicated subjects like quantum physics is twisted by some wishful thinking crank who thinks it supports quantum woo. And this is precisely what you've got a case of right here.
Besides, even if it DID prove spirituality it's quite obvious it's proving the existence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
It sounds more like chasing the force. Midi-chlorians are a close description of mitochondria. When you think about it, mDNA could be in an evolutionary tug of war with regular DNA, but is far too simple to have much of a chance. The question would be whether or not mDNA has effective leverage over the expression of regular DNA.

Under normal circumstances, I'd say that mDNA would express itself as simple prejudicial treatment in favor of the maternal bloodline. If you really want to get into fantastic speculation, you'd probably have to introduce some sort of biological mechanism that works at the sub-atomic level. Then you might be interested in "the force" or "immortal souls". No evidence, not interested.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#60156
Nov 23, 2012
 
MazHere wrote:
Unfortunately, the evolutionary fiasco played out like the changing scenes and scenarios that support the overarching TOE is much like any bed time story and cannot be proven to not exist. That is why TOE is virtually unfalsifiable and does not meet the a credible standard of falsifiability.
Of course it's falsifiable. All you need do is find JUST ONE violation of nested hierarchies.

Just one.

Find us just one human being with a DNA makeup of a cactus.

Just one pre-Cambrian rabbit.

Just one buffalo with a bunch of ape-specific ERV's in orthologous positions.

Just one fossil with feathers and three middle-ear bones.

Just one Centaur.

Just one dog giving birth to a cat.

Just one example of a fully-formed adult animal brought into being via magical poofing.

Evolution falsified.
MazHere wrote:
Hence, my question in relation to evolutionists predictions around non coding dna. What supports TOE? If in 50 years time it is demonstrated that all of the genome is functional, as creationists predict, what then? Does that mean TOE is flse?
Nope. Nothing wrong with DNA having function. In fact it's expected. It's the PATTERN of DNA that's important, not whether or not it has function. Now if the DNA falls outside nested hierarchies THEN evolution is false.

On the other hand birds do not have teeth. Plus all the animals on Noah's Ark were vegies anyway, right? And yet chicken (occasionally) have teeth.

Creationism falsified.

Oh, except for the bit where you invoke Jewmagic to rescue all creationist failures in which case magic is non-predictable, non-verifiable, non-testable and hence non-falsifiable.

And therefore non-scientific.
MazHere wrote:
Not on Darwins death bed! Hence although TOE can make a few scant predictions, it is virtually unfalsifiable and has little predictability.
I see. That's why evolution uses SIFTER which uses evolutionary algorithms to predict protein function with 96% accuracy.

So far the creationist version has an accuracy of an amazing...

um...

ZERO percent.

Probably because they don't have anything close which can compare. Darn.
MazHere wrote:
All faiths can interpret data to suit themselves and come up with their own algorithmic magic to support themselves.
Ah, sorry, yes. SIFTER really is just magic.(wink wink)

Isn't it embarrassing when our magic really IS better than your god's?
MazHere wrote:
I think to be closed to only one view is problematic.
The thing is it seriously looks like creos are on better tracks than evos.
Of COURSE! That's why they can't get creationism published in scientific journals, that every single field disagrees with it, that there is no "scientific theory" of creationism, the Government supports it, as do all the world's major scientific organizations, AND the courts, since you guys have lost EVERY single court case since 1925.
MazHere wrote:
General creationist predictions on junk dna and so called vestigal organs are being supported more as time goes on. That appears to be a fact. These are stable predictions.
If proven in time, I suggest evolutionists will have lost a huge support for evolutionary theory, despite any handwaving they come up with to explain it.
Sorry, but if misrepresenting non-coding DNA is all you got then no wonder you're not getting anywhere. What's the point of nested hierarchies? None under creationism.

Nuts.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#60157
Nov 23, 2012
 
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
All creationists please not a person that has many word and not one shred of support.
Look pal, when you klearn what an actual refute should look like I'll give you are serious reply.
For now you are just a woffler without a link or science to be seen.
Don't be silly Maz. Your alternative is Jewmagic. Refutation isn't even in your dictionary.

First you need to learn what the big words MEAN, THEN you can start learning some BASIC science.

... like what happens when you put your hand in hot water.

And maybe twenty/thirty years later you might be able to take part in a science discussion, at a layman's level.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#60158
Nov 23, 2012
 
HEY MAZ! I asked you AGES ago if you could provide us with the "scientific theory" of creationism. For some reason you still haven't been able to do that. I've been asking that question for about 7 years. The scientific community has been waiting about 3,000.

Still just GODDIDIT WITH MAGIC as usual?

Thought so.
Gstspkr

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#60159
Nov 23, 2012
 
Benny wrote:
<quoted text>
LOL. Charles Darwin was a racist. There's no prove that all life arose from one common ancestor. I am not surprised that the evolutionist theories are collapsing. Atheist science defend Darwinism like a religion. What a big fraud! One Hoax after another. They are so quick to announce their fake evolution discoveries, but they are not so quick to expose their mistakes and disproven conjectures.
Its a political philosophy, Marxism demands there be no other god than government. Evolution is political science as global warming is. It's pushed and and used by those supporting elitist governmental control through the media and educational system. Notice how they fail to produce evidence, but instead, isolate individuals, polarize them with fake controversy, and destroy them with repeated lies. This is a reflection on society, how we rush to push our neighbors under the bus. Guess what. If we are not skeptical of everyone, and give someone a pass, they'll soon push us under the bus.
anonymous

Franklin, PA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#60160
Nov 23, 2012
 
MazHere wrote:
It is usually evos that say creos don't want to talk science and all you evos appear to be doing is scurrying as far away from science as possible.
Every statement I have made I can support from your own researchers. If all you can do is say ' TOE is right because they said so, then I say, that 'they' have been wrong many many times before.eg human knucklewalking ancestry, junk dna, 2 turned to three domains of life, the death of single celled LUCA, brain size tied to bipedalism, Mendellian inheritance being the only form of inheritance refuted by HGT and epigentic inheritance etc.
I can support the scientific statements I make in previous posts and here.
The consortium has assigned some sort of function to roughly 80% of the genome, including more than 70,000 ‘promoter’ regions — the sites, just upstream of genes, where proteins bind to control gene expression — and nearly 400,000 ‘enhancer’ regions that regulate expression of distant genes
http://www.nature.com/news/encode-the-human-e ...
I have stated, in line with the thread topic, that evos have woffled on about junk dna being absolute proof of evolution. That claim is slowly turning to mud. Toe is made of these little balls of rot that are offered as support but are no more than flavour of the month.
A creationist prediction is, and has always been, that in time it will be found that all dna will be found to be functional. The same goes for vestigial organs.
This prediction is being validated as time goes on as any good prediction should. This is opposed to evolutionary theory that generally comprises flavour of the month.
So what say you evos about junk dna? What supports TOE? Some junk, no junk, all junk, how much junk?????? TOE is an anything goes theory with the hit and miss predictability of a crystal ball.
Toe is a philosophy of faith (No need for God) just like any other and is, just like any other faith, trying to find some support for its credibility. Theist evos just have their own slant and IDers are somewhere in the middle.
None of you can answer this above. You can woffle on, and say bla bla, but not one of you has had a word to say about the above.
I am not misrepresenting anything. I do not represent any particular form of creationism.
The thread topic is around junk dna. If you want to continue to go around in cirlces and make vague statements then this is what has been demonstrated.
On the whole evolutionists have not been able to speak to junk dna and its implications for creation or evolution.
Indeed there are no implications for TOE because it is virtually unfalsifiable as are all faiths.
However creationists are much better at making stable predictions.
So as far as the thread topic is concerned the Professor, whatever faith he is, has a good point.
Evolution theory has been around far longer than the idea of junk DNA.

You're right about one thing. Evolution is not provable. That is why it remains a theory. Modern science allows such things. We can't prove quantum theory either because we cannot observe nature at that level. We come up with reasonable methods for making assumptions but acknowledge the possibility that we may be wrong.

For the most part, revisions haven't been required and when they are required, they are usually minor. We simply don't have access to the physical world at the subatomic level and cannot control the chaos of those events. Show us how to observe and control those things, and there's something to talk about.

For now, religion is about as significant as thinking of ourselves as robots being manufactured and ridden by our midi-chlorean friends. Do we ask our cars where they want to go today? No. If I'm a glorified transformer robot, I think I'll just forgo attempts to pick my brains out through my nose, metaphysically speaking!

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.

•••