Evolution vs. Creation

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

Level 2

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

#60254 Nov 23, 2012
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
Why would humans want to create another Earth, there are probably an infinite number of Earths out there.
Created by no one but God.
He created the universe.
anonymous

Franklin, PA

#60255 Nov 23, 2012
FREE SERVANT wrote:
<quoted text>Then would you please tell us when you think the name "Stella" first came into the American Indian dialect?
I'm sure that any language with vocabularies in the hundreds of thousands will coincidentally have one or two words of similar meaning and phonetics.

“Waytogo”

Since: Oct 09

Location hidden

#60256 Nov 23, 2012
Charles Idemi wrote:
<quoted text> That is absurd, define God ?
An all-powerful and the all sufficient God can never be created.
He is the alpha and omega.
LOL LOL LOL.....Ok so oooooooooooooogod is all powerfull so he doesnt have to abide by rules or laws of science...LOL....Keep your nazi fascist KKK religous lies....I will lvie in facts and truth.
anonymous

Franklin, PA

#60257 Nov 23, 2012
Charles Idemi wrote:
<quoted text>LIAR!!!
Gonna cry?
FREE SERVANT

Bellevue, WA

#60258 Nov 23, 2012
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
The universe formed, there were certain "laws" in the universe. The Earth formed as a result of these laws. Now we're on it. There, explained at a level even you can comprehend.
The earth was without form, and void and darkness was upon the face of the deep until the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters, and God said, Let there be light: and there was light. God is the law.

Level 2

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

#60259 Nov 23, 2012
ToManyLaws wrote:
<quoted text>
And like all religions. Your is a man mad lies to control people and make money and gain power by the churches.
That is why every one, including pastors will be judged accordingly. This is after death.

“Waytogo”

Since: Oct 09

Location hidden

#60260 Nov 23, 2012
Charles Idemi wrote:
<quoted text> That is why every one, including pastors will be judged accordingly. This is after death.
LOL ok insane person. After a thousand or more years does your cult have any proof of your god or anything to back up your buybull BS?....??

“Waytogo”

Since: Oct 09

Location hidden

#60261 Nov 23, 2012
FREE SERVANT wrote:
<quoted text>The earth was without form, and void and darkness was upon the face of the deep until the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters, and God said, Let there be light: and there was light. God is the law.
Proof?

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Everton, Australia

#60262 Nov 23, 2012
superwilly wrote:
<quoted text>
Then ignore it instead of prattling on and on like this.
SubdutionZone is a champ due to amounts of post and nothing to do with content. He has absolutely no idea except to mimick others words he likely cannot comprehend himself.

Here is a message to Subduction Zone.....

The work on epitasis I have presented actually supports other research on genetic entropy by John C Sanford.

Of course evos, that have some clue, will point to a swathe of blather that refutes Sanford. Of course evos use their own assumption as a refute and tis is and always has been circular. This new research actually refutes the refute to Sanfords work and turns previous refutes into mindless blather.

"These results provide the first evidence that patterns of epistasis may differ for within- and between-gene interactions during adaptation and that diminishing returns epistasis contributes to the consistent observation of decelerating fitness gains during adaptation."

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

These data support models in which negative epistasis contributes to declining rates of adaptation over time. Sign epistasis was rare in this genome-wide study, in contrast to its prevalence in an earlier study of mutations in a single gene.

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

Some geese here suggest quoting the operative phrase of a research article is quote mining. I say to them they should try presenting some evidence instead of quacking and demonstrating they have no clue what it is to support ones view.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_C._Sanford

Sanford was a respected evo researcher with published papers, turned YEC.

Yes evo researchers that provide this stuff still support TOE. It is just that they have to keep coming up with the most ridiculous and non plausible scenarios to protect their TOE from zombification. The point being that evos have nothing more than handwaving to refute anything any creationist has to say.

Hence a creationist view or faith is no less valuable nor less supported than yours, be it theist or atheist.

So your claim that creationists have not come up with their own algorithmic magic, nor their own interpretations of any data, is made from ignorance. You want croes to understand TOE better than any of you here can and you also appear to have no idea what creos have to present in support of their beliefs. Many evos here are extraordinarily ignorant. Few have any clue.

What evolutionists present as empirical evidence is not really empirical evidence at all. That is just one reason I assert evolutionists have nothing of substance to offer. Subductionzone can feel free to refute me with some evidence rather than his most humble opinion.

Evos invent hypothesis backed by rubbish and then use that to challenge creationists.eg junk dna, an organisms ability to adapt without limits on the back of endless accumulative beneficial mutations, knucklewalking wrist bones,Mendellian inheritance must be the only form of inheritance etc.

So go your hardest evos. My prediction is that I will get more woffle and generalizations with not a shred of research in support and no articulated reply, meaning my points are made and sustained.

Hint: Most research older than 10 years is likely outdated or falsified in favour of the latest flavour of the month.

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

#60263 Nov 23, 2012
Charles Idemi wrote:
<quoted text>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.
Charles the Earth gains around 40,000 tons of space rocks and dust every year in the same process that created it. Earth didn't come to be from the "Big Bang" or a giant magic thumb and forefinger.
anonymous

Franklin, PA

#60264 Nov 23, 2012
Charles Idemi wrote:
<quoted text> That is why every one, including pastors will be judged accordingly. This is after death.
Liar! What you're really saying is that you are always judgmental and you don't wait until you have any facts.

You built this wall. Until you tear it down, nobody is going to believe that you are anything but a liar.

Level 2

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

#60265 Nov 23, 2012
ToManyLaws wrote:
<quoted text>
LOL LOL LOL.....Ok so oooooooooooooogod is all powerfull so he doesnt have to abide by rules or laws of science...LOL....Keep your nazi fascist KKK religous lies....I will lvie in facts and truth.
An all-powerful that can create the solar system, the nine planets, and makes the earth the only verifiable place of existence can never be created.

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

#60266 Nov 23, 2012
Charles Idemi wrote:
<quoted text>Wild wild guess or projections.
What brought about the nature of the earth and how it works?
Understand the nature if the universe and you will understand. Go outside and pick up a rock. You will be holding part of the universe.

“Waytogo”

Since: Oct 09

Location hidden

#60267 Nov 23, 2012
Charles Idemi wrote:
<quoted text> An all-powerful that can create the solar system, the nine planets, and makes the earth the only verifiable place of existence can never be created.
LOL>......Wow...Your stoneage religion is out of date. Try to educate yourself. There is many thousans of solar systems out there. I am sure there is other life out there.. Gods and religion are out of date and lamost done running there course.

“Exercise Your Brain”

Level 1

Since: Jun 07

Planet Earth

#60268 Nov 23, 2012
anonymous wrote:
<quoted text>
The average zealot is of a dual nature. They are statistically in the majority on the self-awareness bell curve so they tend to prop up their egos with numbers and an ever increasing maze of phony logic. None the less, they lack genuine ability to understand others.
The largest minority faction is inherently better with empathy but they depend on all the simpler folk in their quest for power. They are far more likely than the zealot to lower the bar on public/political ethical behavior in order to get short-term results from the masses.
The average zealot is convinced that being of the statistical majority in their patterns of logic is proof that they genuinely understand others better than more complex groups. Some know their act is a lie, while the crazier ones convince themselves that their constant revisions have been completely consistent in their inspiration. Either way, zealots are about as nutty as they can get.
The flaws in a zealot's logic are constantly nibbling away at them from multiple sides. They know that they are trapped in their own lies. They don't think that it matters as long as they are true to the "big picture", but they don't have the big picture. That is where the denial like you see on this forum kicks in.
This is a good example of our current party politics and is why global conflicts are inevitable and cyclic in nature. Nobody learns from history because the real criminal acts are never addressed in the aftermath of conflict. Not by zealots who are driven to hide their mistakes. Not by the usurpers of the status-quo who don't want to admit to taking ethical short cuts in their quest for power.
Religion is dead but for the embarrassed silence of an already obsolete aristocracy who has already decided to let the masses fight it out. "Do unto others" morality is fine with me, but if you want to survive the next conflict, treat both sides of the political spectrum like the criminals and dumb beasts that they are and don't waste a moment on wondering what God thinks about you.
I suppose you are proposing a moral neutral, which is fine by me. A sort of do unto others amongst your close circle and survival of the fittest with the world at large. Self survival is deeply ingrained in most of us, the rest could be window dressing in a manner of speaking, rationalization comes easy to most of us, also.

Since the pendulum swings both ways, are you suggesting assessing both ends of the spectrum - zealots vs. anarchists - and deciding which niche in the middle arc you wish to occupy....without getting anniahlated by either radical side, that is;0)

Intriguing, I can live with that;0)

Level 2

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

#60269 Nov 23, 2012
ToManyLaws wrote:
<quoted text>
LOL ok insane person. After a thousand or more years does your cult have any proof of your god or anything to back up your buybull BS?....??
If there is no evidence of such. Christianity as a religion would have been long extincted.
We have scientist that are Christians, Prof. W.F. Albright, Newton, Copernicus, etc, were all believers and upholders of God.
anonymous

Franklin, PA

#60270 Nov 23, 2012
Charles Idemi wrote:
<quoted text> An all-powerful that can create the solar system, the nine planets, and makes the earth the only verifiable place of existence can never be created.
OK, I'm tired of playing with the monkey toy that bangs the cymbals together and screeches when you bop him on the head.

Level 2

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

#60271 Nov 23, 2012
NikkiShae wrote:
<quoted text>
Charles the Earth gains around 40,000 tons of space rocks and dust every year in the same process that created it. Earth didn't come to be from the "Big Bang" or a giant magic thumb and forefinger.
What brought about the rocks, seas and the oceans, etc?

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Everton, Australia

#60272 Nov 23, 2012
anonymous wrote:
<quoted text>
Now you're just being a forum mud wrestler!
That sciencemag.org site looks fairly legitimate, but don't read into what is posted. Things like "negative epistasis" doesn't mean that natural mutation doesn't drive evolution. It just means what scientists have always said. A vast majority of mutations are harmful. I suppose that it also says that even with the best of efforts, some species run out of strategies to exploit and go extinct.
Researchers don't usually spew out political dogma. It's dangerous to their careers. I will concede that university types tend to have some liberal prejudices and most consider religions that fight against a natural order to be obstructionist.
That's what it comes down to. Science is about a natural order that is NEVER changed by divine intervention. The burden of proof is on you. Nobody has to prove a negative.
So now this bright spark is suggesting the onus is not evolutionists to support their view. is that the case? There is a Goose award going on offer here?

The obvious point being that for evolution to be true based on all your woffle around beneficial mutations they have been acumulating for billions of years. Yet this predictive modelling is suggesting a decline in fitness, not an increase in fitness. You may do your best to explain it however your well credentialled researchers sare surprised and have some up with a plethors of maybes to address it. Maybes are not science. Maybe the reason why this model presents such data is because Sanford was right. That is another interpretation of that data.

This research on epitasis may not falsify TOE or an orgaismns limitless ability to adpat. I am not suggesting that it does nor that these researchers say that. However the point is, this is again NOT what evolutionists expected to find. This is common place. Creos do nort have to invent ridiculous scenarios becuase generally the findings speak for themselves in supporting a creationist paradigm.

The results on this research into epitasis is exactly what creationists expect to find. No convoluted explanations and scenarios but parsimony.

Is that too hard for you to get that mind of yours around?

“Waytogo”

Since: Oct 09

Location hidden

#60273 Nov 23, 2012
Charles Idemi wrote:
<quoted text> If there is no evidence of such. Christianity as a religion would have been long extincted.
We have scientist that are Christians, Prof. W.F. Albright, Newton, Copernicus, etc, were all believers and upholders of God.
Weak minded people will always listen to lies told well and long enough. Early on your religion FORCED people on pain of death into there cult. Now some people like you are just brainwashed.

God and the buybull are man made BS. You would know it if your mind was not so weak.

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
What Could Be Lame,...? 2 min Whipped Pup 5
only TWO words! (Nov '08) 5 min Alias Smith and J... 25,442
why do people cry about icons? 6 min Alisha - Tricia Too 10
Add a word and drop a word (Jan '14) 8 min Mike Allen 1,358
Would you say this is as mythical as bigfoot, m... 8 min Wondering Boy 4
Only Three Word (Nov '09) 10 min Fitter 11,579
Describe how you are feeling in just ONE word... (Feb '09) 13 min Mike Allen 6,860
Do you have a Topix crush? (Jun '11) 15 min Fred Bear 5,607
What are you thinking about now? (Jun '10) 21 min CrunchyBacon 20,169
What's your tip for the day? 29 min honeymylove 1,042
I Like..... (Mar '14) 42 min honeymylove 311
What song are you listening to right now? (Apr '08) 1 hr Sublime1 147,054
•••

Weird People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••