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 (Page 2,816)

Showing posts 56,301 - 56,320 of111,995
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

Marrickville, Australia

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#60224
Nov 23, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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.

“Steaming hunk”

Level 4

Since: Jun 11

butler, pa

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

Marrickville, Australia

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

Marrickville, Australia

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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.

“Steaming hunk”

Level 4

Since: Jun 11

butler, pa

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#60234
Nov 23, 2012
 
NikkiShae wrote:
<quoted text>
It's really as easy as understanding benevolence and malevolence. All people and animals understand this, including you. Religious paradigm unnecessary without motive.
Thank you for validating scripture!

Proverbs 21:3
"To do what is right and just is more acceptable to the LORD than sacrifice."
Proverbs 21:2-4

Level 2

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#60235
Nov 23, 2012
 
NikkiShae wrote:
<quoted text>
The nature of the universe.
Wild wild guess or projections.
What brought about the nature of the earth and how it works?
anonymous

Franklin, PA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#60236
Nov 23, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
Yet .... creationists base everything on the unobserved.
Irony meter busted again.
Creationists base their theories on holy books. Those are man made objects, not natural world observations.

First you get evidence, then you base theories on what you find. Until I see a godlike individual going around, defying all physics, I'm not going to invent such a thing.

“Waytogo”

Since: Oct 09

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#60237
Nov 23, 2012
 

Judged:

1

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.
Who created God?
anonymous

Franklin, PA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#60238
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.
Liar!

Level 2

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#60239
Nov 23, 2012
 
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
Gravity, accretion and time
Next
Another wild guess. What brought about gravity and the others ?

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#60240
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.
Why would humans want to create another Earth, there are probably an infinite number of Earths out there.

“Waytogo”

Since: Oct 09

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#60241
Nov 23, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

Charles Idemi wrote:
<quoted text> Wild wild guess or projections.
What brought about the nature of the earth and how it works?
What brought about your cults god?

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 56,301 - 56,320 of111,995
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" 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.

•••
•••
Enter and win $5000
•••
•••