Evolution vs. Creation

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

Park City, Utah

#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.

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#60335 Nov 23, 2012
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
You just proved his point.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#60336 Nov 23, 2012
MazHere wrote:
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.
Not a problem. The second solves the first. Also reducing the rate of adaptation does not prevent evolution unless it adversely affects the reproductive rate to the point of population declination, a result which is NOT supported in either of the papers described. Uh... you DID know that there are BILLIONS of species currently on planet Earth whose population is INCREASING, yes (that's including humans too)? Also the alternative you propose also DECIMATES all life on Earth, and yet here you are saying that evolution can only lead to extinction therefore evolution "must" be wrong. Ergo creationist hypocrisy raises its ugly head yet again.
MazHere wrote:
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.
Actually we do. And they were provided. You didn't address them back then, you sure haven't even bothered now. So what did you do?

Oh yes. You went and found some papers on evolution, ignored the fact that even the writers themselves did not and do not support your assertions (quote-mining is lying) then mixed in a little Young Earth apologetics in the form of Sanford's genetic entropy which was debunked many years ago, then you pressed the post button with the firm intent of ignoring any subsequent rebuttals anyway.

As usual.
MazHere wrote:
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.
And yet if that were true you should have no trouble addressing our posts in a rational coherent manner. Is that what happens? Nope. You just shout "WOFFLE!" then move the goalposts onto some other subject and hope than no-one would notice. In the meantime evolution was demonstrated at least as far back as February, but more than likely it was even way before then.

So far not one of you has even made an attempt on it yet. Then once you get past that we can talk ERV's. And for once maybe just ONE of you could explain exactly what the "scientific theory" of creationism is.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#60337 Nov 23, 2012
MazHere wrote:
Evos have had nothing to say at all about junk dna.
That's because you ignored inconvenient posts.
MazHere wrote:
Creationists can actually make predictions around non coding dna and vestigial organs. There will be none if mankind was created rahter than evolved.
Chicken-teeth. They aren't normally expressed in chickens because the DNA is non-coding.
MazHere wrote:
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.
I can:

http://www.topix.com/forum/news/evolution/T9Q...
MazHere wrote:
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.
Except you've never once been able to support Goddidit with magic. If you can then tell us how that passes the scientific method.
MazHere wrote:
80% of the genome is now known to be functional and is validating creationist predictions.
Already pointed out function is not the problem here. The DNA inheritance pattern is. Only evolution explains it.
MazHere wrote:
Here is the published and peer reviewed research.
Since they do not support your conclusions you are quotemining.
MazHere wrote:
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.So evos suggest man is closely related to a chimp because they are 1% similar or 80% different. Make up your mind.
Already explained. They are comparing larger datasets of DNA groups, hence the different measurement method. A VERY simple pure base-by-base comparison shows humans and chimps are closest match. Even other creationists don't dispute this, but instead appealing to "common design", which is really taking the predictions made by evolution after the fact.
MazHere wrote:
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.
Your baseless opinions are irrelevant. Your absurd claims are constantly rebutted which in turn are subsequently not addressed. And you always avoid the hypocrisy of your own alternative which guarantees you cannot ever win any debate, as your alternative is non-falsifiable and internally contradictory.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#60338 Nov 23, 2012
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
Projection.

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 song are you listening to right now? (Apr '08) 6 min Mona 157,904
lets play follow the word! (Jul '08) 7 min Nobody 2 Special 39,454
Rest in Peace, Spock 7 min -Lea- 168
Dave's bar and grill,is now open. (May '13) 8 min Nobody 2 Special 5,976
Last 3 Letters into 3 new words. (Dec '08) 8 min Nobody 2 Special 56,095
Post "any three words" (Sep '12) 13 min Dr Wu 1,189
Funny!! Word association game. (Nov '13) 13 min Nobody 2 Special 2,650
Denny Crain's Place (May '10) 25 min harleyhoney 17,870
Name a smell you love to smell! (Jan '14) 28 min harleyhoney 767
El's Kitchen (Feb '09) 2 hr NinaRocks 39,287
More from around the web