Evolution vs. Creation

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

Birkenhead, UK

#60315 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!
Ah. So you're using the Star Trek definition of the word 'dimension'. Always a good sign. How'd that hand signal go again?
Orangelion

Abergele, UK

#60316 Nov 23, 2012
ToManyLaws wrote:
<quoted text>
Yet you still want people rights and freedoms taken away because of your cult myth nazi beliefs.
I don't, I have good evidence to support my beliefs.

“Waytogo”

Since: Oct 09

Location hidden

#60317 Nov 23, 2012
Orangelion wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't, I have good evidence to support my beliefs.
You have nothing. Your lies wont change facts.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#60318 Nov 23, 2012
ChristineM wrote:
Hey Dude, methinks you have upset another godbot
Yup. Took shorter than usual too.

:-p
ChristineM wrote:
Gstspkr, the “Great” Margaret Thatcher legacy –
The institutionalised corruption of privatising the nation’s utilities so her mates in the City could get ever richer.
The complete dismantling of entire industries and the communities that relied on them.
Engineering the biggest transfer of wealth from the poorest to the richest ever seen in the UK up to that point.
The Poll Tax
Riots.
Poverty.
Record unemployment,
The most draconian and repressive employment legislation anywhere in the developed world
Her defence of and friendship with Chilean mass-murdering dictator General Pinochet
The ruination of the NHS to name but a few of her achievements.
Uhuh, hence her mostly general lack of popularity ever since. If I also wanted an easy cheap shot I could easy just say George Bush.
Orangelion

Abergele, UK

#60319 Nov 23, 2012
ToManyLaws wrote:
<quoted text>
You have nothing. Your lies wont change facts.
It will have to be an empasse till one wins his points then.

“Darwin was right..of course.”

Level 9

Since: Jun 11

Tempe, AZ.

#60320 Nov 23, 2012
Charles Idemi wrote:
<quoted text> What brought about the rocks, seas and the oceans, etc?
Space detritus.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#60321 Nov 23, 2012
Gstspkr wrote:
<quoted text>
And the socialist gospel proclaims that once upon a time a lightning bolt struck a possible ammoniated methane pool, generated stray amino acids which possibly hooked up in a manner which allowed it feed, digest and reproduce itself. Sorry progressive genius, I just can't buy swamp land in southern Arizona, but you obviously have that "kind of blind faith" for such an investment.
You're getting him confused. He's the UFO-ologist. Which is technically more akin to creationism.

I notice you're bringing up abiogenesis again. It still has no bearing on the scientific validity of evolution. Sorry.

But no matter what your beefs are with ANY scientific concept, you have already defeated your own case (as if you even had one to begin with). Your alternative is Goddidit with magic. Even if we PRETEND evolution was wrong (just for the sake of argument) all we need do then is say well evolution did it with magic, and our claims would be every bit as valid as yours.

That's it. Stalemate. Debate over. You may as well go home.

Bye then.(shrug)
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#60322 Nov 23, 2012
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
With all your words you do realize that you never have anything of substance to say.
Irony meter go boom.

Hey Maz! What's the "scientific theory" of creationism?

(sound of crickets chirping)

See what I mean? Maybe next millenium then eh?

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Everton, Australia

#60323 Nov 23, 2012
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Really now? And yet here you are manipulating history and science to promote a political view with the express intent of illegally teaching ancient superstition in public schools so you can ensure **other people's kids** will be as naive as you. The irony is quite astounding. Physician heal thyself.
You had best keep rolling your eyes because that is the level of your competence. You suggest science is manipulated to suit some agenda but you stay silent as to what exactly it is that is said that is misrepresented and how?

Here is an idea!!!! Have a go at giving more than woffle in response to this below, with that famous peer reviewed research you lot always insist on and gobble on about.

Evos have had nothing to say at all about junk dna.
Here is what support for ones view may look like that evos appear to have no clue about.

Creationists can actually make predictions around non coding dna and vestigial organs. There will be none if mankind was created rahter than evolved. Evolutionists cannot not make a prediction around dna. It is that simple. Refute that with evidence and more than your humble and uneducated opinion. They can't.

Do we now why you can't? Because creos can support their view and evos are left walking up the garden path of evasion along with all their evolutionary cohorts here. All they can offer is opinionate rhetoric, and that is NOT science in case they are confused.

Further more to that it is evolutionary scientists that are handing creationists the evidence for creation on a silver platter and continually refuting previous evolutionary assertions.
80% of the genome is now known to be functional and is validating creationist predictions.

http://www.nature.com/news/encode-the-human-e...
Here is the published and peer reviewed research.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15716009

Here is a paper written by evolutionists including one from the Max Plank Institute in Germany. This paper speaks to the myth of 1%. This paper supports my view that indeed evolutionists have no credible method of dna comparison. Evo results are fictiously biased. Rather evolutionary researchers ignore all differences then zero in on some tiny bit of sequence and start applying their preconcieved assumptions and algorithmic magic.

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/316/5833/18...

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/316/5833/18...

So evos suggest man is closely related to a chimp because they are 1% similar or 80% different. Make up your mind.

Hence TOE is not a science it is a philosophy trying to be a science and failing miserably it seems. Evos just refuse to see it. Its a matter of unfounded pride. Others here believe in some form of dribble yet will ridicule others.

The majority of you evos be you theist or atheist are as closed minded as any religious bigot has a right to be.

Now I guarantee you that you will come back with a woffly reply or none at all, as opposed to a view I provide backed by research data given a creationist interpretation.

Alternatively you are welcome to call the evolutionary researchers quoted above idiots if you like. We may have some point of agreeance on that.

“Waytogo”

Since: Oct 09

Location hidden

#60324 Nov 23, 2012
Orangelion wrote:
<quoted text>
It will have to be an empasse till one wins his points then.
I already won. Many weeks ago.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#60325 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!


O HAI MAZ! I see you're still repeating fallacies even though they've all been addressed since here:

http://www.topix.com/forum/news/evolution/T9Q...

I notice you *still* haven't addressed your humongous problems and since you're *still* promoting GODDIDIT WITH MAGIC it *still* makes you a stupendously monumental dishonest hypocrite.

I'm sure you'll come back with something rationally coherent one day, right?

Like when Jesus comes back.

Go ask Harold Camping when that might happen.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#60326 Nov 23, 2012
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
A post based on opinion will never provide more credibility than the supported view I can present with research in support of my views and assertions. eg my last post. Evos here appear to be too stupid to even understand what research and support looks like.
I'd say peer reviewed research from your own researchers is support for my view as opposed to these woffly replies I get from the likes of idiots like you.
As I said you evos here on this forum are hopelessly ignorant and uneducated in the science they are trying to defend and doing a bad job of I may add!
In that case you should have no problem addressing my posts then.(shrug)

Go on Maz. Snap to it. Chop chop. There's a good fundie.

(Dude checks watch)

(then calendar)

Oh, hey Miss February.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#60327 Nov 23, 2012
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
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!
You haven't falsified mine yet. I wonder why that is.

You know that even if you did have the capability to falsify evolution (laughable thought you understanding science, I know) you only end up at the same stalemate as Gstspkr does. So by all means keep posturing Mr Black Knight.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#60328 Nov 23, 2012
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
The research I presented was NOT from creationist sites you idiot!
The links are ALL from evo sites including Nature magazine you silly twit.
And your conclusions were quotemined based on long-known long-rebutted creationist arguments. So why do you lie for Jesus?

Remember, God is watching...
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#60329 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.
Already addressed. And when one looks at the actual scientific papers one finds they DON'T actually support your conclusions. That's the second time in 2 days you've been guilty of that trick. It will at least work on your fellow fundies though. After all for you guys it's all about the PR rather than the science.

But then that also explains why you guys always fail at science.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#60330 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.
Actually it's skepticism that's the reason why we view "proof" that way. It's the scientific method. Debating creationists is a waste of time, at least for the purpose of debate. But perhaps not so much as for demonstrating their integrity. Or should I say lack of it.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#60331 Nov 23, 2012
NikkiShae wrote:
<quoted text>
History, psychology and philosophy are my areas of expertise my friend. Perhaps you can find a worthy debate with a geneticist. Cheers.
... or someone who knows he's misusing the measurements of the biologists and pretending the results say something they don't. If he was interested in debate he could always talk to me.

As it happens he prefers to ignore me.

And has done for months.

I'm used to it - on another thread Urban Cowboy's been ignoring everybody for two years.(shrug)

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Everton, Australia

#60332 Nov 23, 2012
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
O HAI MAZ! I see you're still repeating fallacies even though they've all been addressed since here:
http://www.topix.com/forum/news/evolution/T9Q...
I notice you *still* haven't addressed your humongous problems and since you're *still* promoting GODDIDIT WITH MAGIC it *still* makes you a stupendously monumental dishonest hypocrite.
I'm sure you'll come back with something rationally coherent one day, right?
Like when Jesus comes back.
Go ask Harold Camping when that might happen.
And still nothing more than woffle and not a word based on science to be seen. You are a backyard evo that can only baaaa like a sheep.

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Everton, Australia

#60333 Nov 23, 2012
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually it's skepticism that's the reason why we view "proof" that way. It's the scientific method. Debating creationists is a waste of time, at least for the purpose of debate. But perhaps not so much as for demonstrating their integrity. Or should I say lack of it.
More BS above and not a shred of substantiation nor an appropriate articulated refute.

Well done!

My opinion of you being an empty vessel of mindless rhetoric has been substantiated.

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Everton, Australia

#60334 Nov 23, 2012
This is still on the table...Concede you evos if you have no redress that is appropriate.

Evos have had nothing to say at all about junk dna still. All they can do is woffle on with their most humble opinion and present rubbish. Evos seriously need to pull their heads in when it comes to their self righteous attitudes of supremacy.

Here is what support for ones view may look like that evos appear to have no clue about. You can also feel free to refute my claims of scientists flocking to forms of creationism in droves.

Creationists can actually make predictions around non coding dna and vestigial organs. There will be none if mankind was created rather than evolved. Evolutionists cannot not make a prediction around dna. It is that simple. Refute that with evidence and more than your humble and uneducated opinion. They can't.

Further more to that it is evolutionary scientists that are handing creationists the evidence for creation on a silver platter and continually refuting previous evolutionary assertions.

80% of the genome is now known to be functional and is validating creationist predictions.
http://www.nature.com/news/encode-the-human-e...

Here is the published and peer reviewed research.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15716009

Here is a paper written by evolutionists including one from the Max Plank Institute in Germany. This paper speaks to the myth of 1%. This paper supports my view that indeed evolutionists have no credible method of dna comparison. Evo results are fictiously biased. Rather evolutionary researchers ignore all differences then zero in on some tiny bit of sequence and start applying their preconcieved assumptions and algorithmic magic.

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

Here is the pay per view, peer reviewed and published paper that the previous article speaks to.

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/316/5833/18...

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/316/5833/18...

So evos suggest man is closely related to a chimp because they are 1% similar or 80% different. Make up your mind. You really have no clue. You just know that whatever you find has to be muddled into some evolutionary complicated convolution.

Mankind must have evolved because the majority of the genome is a left over non coding remnant and because most of the genome is functional. Make up your mind.

Are there any predictions that TOE can make around non coding dna and comparative similarity? The answer is NO.

Hence TOE is not a science it is a philosophy trying to be a science and failing miserably it seems. Evos just refuse to see it. Its a matter of unfounded pride.

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
Woman Switches Seats on Plane, Spends 3 Days in... 4 min Syntax Error 8
Amazing video: Monkey rescues electrocuted friend 9 min A Noted Ferrerman 9
only TWO words! (Nov '08) 10 min Cyan in CA 25,607
What song are you listening to right now? (Apr '08) 14 min stray-cat 152,790
El's Kitchen (Feb '09) 16 min TALLYHO 8541 37,760
Word Association 2 (Sep '13) 37 min Jennifer Renee 7,773
Let's Play Song Titles With One Word? 45 min stray-cat 428
What are you thinking about now? (Jun '10) 2 hr Enzo49 25,853
BAN(N) the P0STER Above you !!! (Feb '14) 6 hr Chilli J 3,014
More from around the web