Evolution vs. Creation

High school senior Zack Kopplin is leading the fight to repeal the Louisiana Science Education Act of 2008. Full Story

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Everton, Australia

#60213 Nov 23, 2012
anonymous wrote:
<quoted text>
There's that Christian attitude for you!
Charles, you don't know me. Not even slightly. If there is anyone on the earth who rejects our Big Brother society more than me, even to the point of personal sacrifice, I've yet to meet them.
Christians are like all other urban rats. When they have an opportunity to exploit, they keep their mouths shut and exploit it. Sharing is not in their nature.
Nobody is a bottomless well of generosity but I can only pity those who forget their innocence and spend the rest of their days rationalizing their selfishness. Immortal souls, my patootie!
Oh I suppose those that follow some obese mutant that decided abandoning his family is the way to go! Maybe we should follow those that suggest the earth is held up by a turtle. Or maybe those that suggest Lucy the ape had a conversation with God.

Every book on TOE is a fable concocted by a delusionary mind as evidenced by the huge rubbish bin of evolutionary delusions past that have been falsified. Hello!

“Darwin was right..of course.”

Level 9

Since: Jun 11

Patagonia

#60214 Nov 23, 2012
Portal wrote:
<quoted text>The makers are if fact manipulating and controlling all life on this planet.........they function in a dimension the primitive human animal will never and dosnt want to comprehend. The Bible story is nothing more than intelligent beings distorting the truth.....to fool the human animal. A brilliant disguise!
Typical California bullsh!t
anonymous

Franklin, PA

#60215 Nov 23, 2012
Gstspkr wrote:
<quoted text>
The rocks that I stacked up when I was a kid, are still rocks. The caterpillars I caught never turned into a fish or a snake, but miraculously stayed moths or butterflies. Tadpoles didn't turn into Rihanna or earthworms, but miraculously remained frogs or toads. Most " irrefutable" evidence was fraudulent like the evolving moths, or pilt- down man or Lucy. And the the famous lightning in a mudhole proclamation forming amino acids. Do me a favor, and take apart your car piece by piece and scatter all over your back yard. After this, lets wager in 10 years, that those car pieces will evolve back into your Buick ready and running. And you think we believe in MAGIC ?
Piltdown man was an act of fraud. What is this other rhetorical nonsense? The archeological remains called "Lucy" are entirely valid, although some original ideas about her being a direct ancestor may have changed. At the time, the discovery filled in a big gap in knowledge that has been refined, not dismissed.

As far as abiogenesis is concerned, your analogies and stubborn refusal to accept the enormous time involved aren't worth refuting. You just picked a creation myth that suits your agenda, and you've put no effort at all into finding out and defending the truth for yourself. Just a pack animal, trying to move up in the pecking order it seems.

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Everton, Australia

#60216 Nov 23, 2012
Subduction Zone wrote:
Maz, quote mining and misinterpreting articles does not support your side at all.
Since your understanding is so incredibly wrong you need to focus on one item at a time. And avoid creationist sites.
The vast amount of creationist sites openly admit that they are not honest.
The research I presented was NOT from creationist sites you idiot!

The links are ALL from evo sites including Nature magazine you silly twit.

Instead of wasting your time posting rubbish I suggest you actually open the links and read them in the vague hope that one day you may actually be able to have something worthwhile to say.

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Everton, Australia

#60217 Nov 23, 2012
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
So have evolutionists become mindless sheep! I am not a mindless sheep because I can actually support my view that creationists are gaining better support for their views whilst TOE is becoming a huge mes of contradiction and instability., It appears evos here on this forum are demonstrating how confused they are.
None of you here have the ability to mount a supported debate. Not one of you have for the entire thread, it appears.
None of you will speak to any prediction on non coding dna because you do not have one, whilst I do. There is no need for junk if we were created. You lot sprooked there would be and suggested that 98% of the genome was functionless. These bright sparks, once again and in line with previous history, were wrong.
Hence junk dna proves evolution and I suppose 80% functional non coding dna also supports evolution does it?
http://www.nature.com/news/encode-the-human-e...
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15716009
Also 1% difference supports TOE as does the fact that dna comparisons are ridiculously misrepresentative and in actual fact there is an 80% difference in protien expression as well as all the vast differences that are ignored.
http://academic.brooklyn.cuny.edu/biology/fra...
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15716009
Assertions backed by research is the only way to form a bais for debate. Mindless opinion and empty words mean nothing, just in case you remain confused about what a debate or supporting ones view should look like.
I suggest that as an observer of the evolution/creation debate the creationists are actually being given their evidence by evolutionists on a golden plater!
Above is what a supported view looks like.

Some of you evos are real morons and do not even know the difference between a creo site and your own research.
anonymous

Franklin, PA

#60218 Nov 23, 2012
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Indeed. In fact in science, "theory" is as high as it gets. NOTHING gets "proven". Theories do NOT get promoted to "laws" after a certain amount of evidence comes in. This is because all scientific concepts need to have the potential for falsification. Without which theories can't make valid testable scientific predictions.
Just a point about QM though, it IS scientifically testable, and so far it does so successfully. For more info on that area though, seek Polymath, our resident physicist around these parts.
I've run into Polymath. He's knowledgeable but for the sake of argument, you both think of "proof" differently than a skeptic would. Creationists expect to observe things directly with their senses. In truth, they usually don't understand the conditions nor the math behind modern tests so it's a waste of time to debate with them.

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

#60219 Nov 23, 2012
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>So have evolutionists become mindless sheep! I am not a mindless sheep because I can actually support my view that creationists are gaining better support for their views whilst TOE is becoming a huge mes of contradiction and instability., It appears evos here on this forum are demonstrating how confused they are.

None of you here have the ability to mount a supported debate. Not one of you have for the entire thread, it appears.

None of you will speak to any prediction on non coding dna because you do not have one, whilst I do. There is no need for junk if we were created. You lot sprooked there would be and suggested that 98% of the genome was functionless. These bright sparks, once again and in line with previous history, were wrong.

Hence junk dna proves evolution and I suppose 80% functional non coding dna also supports evolution does it?

http://www.nature.com/news/encode-the-human-e...

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15716009

Also 1% difference supports TOE as does the fact that dna comparisons are ridiculously misrepresentative and in actual fact there is an 80% difference in protien expression as well as all the vast differences that are ignored.

http://academic.brooklyn.cuny.edu/biology/fra...

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15716009

Assertions backed by research is the only way to form a bais for debate. Mindless opinion and empty words mean nothing, just in case you remain confused about what a debate or supporting ones view should look like.

I suggest that as an observer of the evolution/creation debate the creationists are actually being given their evidence by evolutionists on a golden plater!
History, psychology and philosophy are my areas of expertise my friend. Perhaps you can find a worthy debate with a geneticist. Cheers.

anonymous

Franklin, PA

#60220 Nov 23, 2012
Gstspkr wrote:
<quoted text>
But mysteriously, it arrived in the same time frame as Engels and Marx. Master confiscators, who proposed the rights of the working man and revolution only to seize power and ruthlessly, by force oppress any who opposed them including many revolutionary working men. They explicitly write of the need to abolish God in order to promote the worship of superiors to which they immediately promoted themselves. After all they couldn't allow the peasants assign any meaning to such vile biblical versus like "God is a respecter of no man", meaning we are all equally faulty, themselves included.
Charles Darwin did not collude with political theorists!!

In all honesty, Darwin had to rush his work into print because others were already working on similar ideas. He was interested in fame, not in seizing power from the aristocracy. He was among the aristocracy.

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#60222 Nov 23, 2012
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
Above is what a supported view looks like.
Some of you evos are real morons and do not even know the difference between a creo site and your own research.
You can call it whatever you want, it doesn't change the fact that it's quote mining and misrepresenting the evidence in a pitiful attempt to discredit the very people you are using as evidence.
anonymous

Franklin, PA

#60223 Nov 23, 2012
Gstspkr wrote:
<quoted text>
Go for the gusto progressive!, PLUNDER! PISS IT AWAY! AND APPLAUD YOURSELF!. As the great Margaret Thatcher said, "Socialism is great until you run put of other people's money". After that you'll have to "evolve your ass off the free ride couch" and discover the basic science of economics. You applaud your education, but do you take more than you give Mr Progressive ? Who is it that you feel entitled to weigh down ? Does it make you feel important to try bring others down to your level ? Is it fair, progressive that they forgo going to the pub, and not buying your drinks ? Is it fair that they save and invest, while you've piss your time away ? Is it right that they recognize to need to grow, while you feel the need to confiscate their reputation, resources, and freedom ? It appears you missed your calling and time. You should have been born in the 17th century, as you fit the profile of a fine English slave trader
So when it comes down to it, this is about class warfare? Never mind the irony in that slave comment!

A capitalist would tell you one truth. It's not about how hard you work. It's about what you produce, how much you produce, and what people will pay for it.

I wouldn't play the victim. You'll have a bad day if you take that act public.

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Everton, Australia

#60224 Nov 23, 2012
anonymous wrote:
<quoted text>
I've run into Polymath. He's knowledgeable but for the sake of argument, you both think of "proof" differently than a skeptic would. Creationists expect to observe things directly with their senses. In truth, they usually don't understand the conditions nor the math behind modern tests so it's a waste of time to debate with them.
You are woffling with vaguary. What do you mean?

I understand the underlying assumptions of algorithmic magic for both sides of the debate. How about you?

The way evos refute creos is by providing research presented as empirical when it is not empirical evidence at all.

All the evo woffle around junk dna is just one example of it.

Just how valid would you suggest all the algorithmic magic presented as empirical evidence for 98% junk dna was?

That is the platform from which you are sprooking off your mouth from. It is a baseless and mindless stream of woffle with absolutely no foundation at all.

Here is somethinjg else you may be interested in on beneficial mutations accumulating to produce overwhelmingly negative effects re epitasis.

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/332/6034/11...

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/332/6034/11...

Feel free to refute the substance of these articles with more than your opinion.

These articles that are published and peer reviewed do not support an organisms unlimited ability to adapt. Rather they imply huge cost and restrictions around variation on the back of accumulating beneficial mutations, as if evos actually know what a beneficial mutation is in the first place.

Now let's see what baseless and unsupported reply I get back, if any. Evos tend to scurry away when the going gets tough or offer some opinuionate woffle based on "I beleive because researchers that are continually wrong said so". eg my assertions re junk dna. That is about the best you lot appear to be able to provide here.

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#60225 Nov 23, 2012
anonymous wrote:
<quoted text>
I've run into Polymath. He's knowledgeable but for the sake of argument, you both think of "proof" differently than a skeptic would. Creationists expect to observe things directly with their senses. In truth, they usually don't understand the conditions nor the math behind modern tests so it's a waste of time to debate with them.
Yet .... creationists base everything on the unobserved.

Irony meter busted again.
anonymous

Franklin, PA

#60226 Nov 23, 2012
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
Above is what a supported view looks like.
Some of you evos are real morons and do not even know the difference between a creo site and your own research.
Let's just say that there are scientific publications and there are popular science sites that are more about entertainment than peer review.

“too hard to handle”

Level 4

Since: Jun 11

butler, pa

#60227 Nov 23, 2012
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
I would ignore it, like I ignore other myths, but there are certain idiots that claim it is real. I point out the obvious and am waiting for their evidence. This is one case where lack of evidence of an event is evidence that the event never took place.
Then ignore it instead of prattling on and on like this.

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Everton, Australia

#60228 Nov 23, 2012
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
You can call it whatever you want, it doesn't change the fact that it's quote mining and misrepresenting the evidence in a pitiful attempt to discredit the very people you are using as evidence.
Then if this is your opinion you should be able to demonstrte for all where and what I actually misrepresented.

These researchers still accept TOE. The point I am making is that it is all woffle and not empirical evidence at all.

If all this woffle was empirical evidence it would not change like the wind and refute itself on a regular basis.

Evolutionary research is one of the few fields of work where one can be consistently worng and not get fired.

Data is provided, but just how valid is it? Further to that any data can be interpreted based on a predefined assumption.

TOE is not a science. It is a faith and you have faith in these boofheads that change their mind all the time.

You have many words but you cannot articulate an appropriate refute backed by research. You can quack and that appears to be about it.

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Everton, Australia

#60229 Nov 23, 2012
anonymous wrote:
<quoted text>
Let's just say that there are scientific publications and there are popular science sites that are more about entertainment than peer review.
Suck eggs. You are one of the boofheads have no clue about what is or isn't a creationist site.

"let's just say"..What now are you still unclear what is or isn't a creationist site even though you can open the links and look for yourself. Don't you know how to open links either?

Your ignorance supports the fact that you have no idea about recent advances in evolutionary theory. It is that simple. It is like I am trying to have a debate with a 12 year old.

Level 2

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

#60230 Nov 23, 2012
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
There you go again making god like assumptions
Did I say I did not dream, no I did not, I commented on YOUR statement about YOU.
You donít like that then donít make stupid statements
You commented about me. Do you know me before?
Go on with your gibberish.

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#60231 Nov 23, 2012
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
Then if this is your opinion you should be able to demonstrte for all where and what I actually misrepresented.
These researchers still accept TOE. The point I am making is that it is all woffle and not empirical evidence at all.
If all this woffle was empirical evidence it would not change like the wind and refute itself on a regular basis.
Evolutionary research is one of the few fields of work where one can be consistently worng and not get fired.
Data is provided, but just how valid is it? Further to that any data can be interpreted based on a predefined assumption.
TOE is not a science. It is a faith and you have faith in these boofheads that change their mind all the time.
You have many words but you cannot articulate an appropriate refute backed by research. You can quack and that appears to be about it.
Aw, you don't know how to read. Oh well, another creatard, you don't even know how to spell.
anonymous

Franklin, PA

#60232 Nov 23, 2012
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
You are woffling with vaguary. What do you mean?
I understand the underlying assumptions of algorithmic magic for both sides of the debate. How about you?
The way evos refute creos is by providing research presented as empirical when it is not empirical evidence at all.
All the evo woffle around junk dna is just one example of it.
Just how valid would you suggest all the algorithmic magic presented as empirical evidence for 98% junk dna was?
That is the platform from which you are sprooking off your mouth from. It is a baseless and mindless stream of woffle with absolutely no foundation at all.
Here is somethinjg else you may be interested in on beneficial mutations accumulating to produce overwhelmingly negative effects re epitasis.
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/332/6034/11...
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/332/6034/11...
Feel free to refute the substance of these articles with more than your opinion.
These articles that are published and peer reviewed do not support an organisms unlimited ability to adapt. Rather they imply huge cost and restrictions around variation on the back of accumulating beneficial mutations, as if evos actually know what a beneficial mutation is in the first place.
Now let's see what baseless and unsupported reply I get back, if any. Evos tend to scurry away when the going gets tough or offer some opinuionate woffle based on "I beleive because researchers that are continually wrong said so". eg my assertions re junk dna. That is about the best you lot appear to be able to provide here.
1. What the heck is "woffle"?
2. Why do you talk about algorithms without a specific context. THAT sounds like magic!
3. In truth, algorithmic formulas are not empirical evidence at all. They may help identify significant patterns in evidence but they are subject to peer review as much as the data is.
4. From what little I've read, junk DNA is a sloppy buzzword that never needed to be invented. In the long run, you can only make a minor prediction concerning the rate of mutation and and how much that change will make portions of the genetic code obsolete. It really has no bearing on the process of Evolution and you'll probably end up with some arbitrary judgments on the value of mutations anyway. It's just sloppy.

Level 2

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

#60233 Nov 23, 2012
NikkiShae wrote:
<quoted text>
The power of imagination.
The earth never came up on its own or through any big bang.
God created the earth.
Man can only shape the earth, but can never create one.

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.

Weird Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Keep a Word.....Drop a Word Game (Sep '13) 8 min whatimeisit 6,240
Word Association (Mar '10) 12 min whatimeisit 16,111
What song are you listening to right now? (Apr '08) 27 min Wolftracks 149,015
Make a Story / 4 Words Only (Nov '08) 1 hr Grace Nerissa 24,574
Do you have a Topix crush? (Jun '11) 1 hr Princess Hey 6,832
topix.com describe in one word (Apr '13) 2 hr Enzo49 143
If you could live in a book ~ 2 hr Emerald 4
True or False Game 5 hr SLY WEST 383
During Obama's Speech at Democratic Campaign Ra... 6 hr SLY WEST 32
What are you thinking about now? (Jun '10) 6 hr -Lea- 22,231

Weird People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE