Evolution vs. Creation

There are 20 comments on the Best of New Orleans story from Jan 6, 2011, titled Evolution vs. Creation. In it, Best of New Orleans reports that:

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

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Best of New Orleans.

FREE SERVANT

Bellevue, WA

#60348 Nov 23, 2012
Agate stones are said to be from 200 to 400 million years old according to scientist. These stones have been found in Kentucky that have distinct pictures of native American Indians after they were cut in half. The Creator of the earth foreknew about the Indians. I personally think scientist have their timelines wrong.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#60349 Nov 23, 2012
MazHere wrote:
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.
So let's see what they ACTUALLY said shall we?

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

"The proportional selective benefit for three of the four loci consistently decreased when they were introduced onto MORE FIT BACKGROUNDS. These three alleles all REDUCED MORPHOLOGICAL DEFECTS caused by expression of the foreign pathway. A simple theoretical model segregating the apparent contribution of individual alleles to benefits and costs EFFECTIVELY PREDICTED" (that's evolution science baby) "the interactions between them." (emphasis mine)

In other words the particular benefits of these loci were reduced overall when introduced into a focus already of a robust nature. It's like someone with $25 being given three $5 notes and someone else with $150 getting three $10 notes. The latter still feels a benefit but not as much as the first guy does. In other words the more fit something gets the less NOTICEABLE benefit from further successful adaptations. Note the BENEFITS occurring WITHOUT any declines in fitness, and also the LACK of creationist predictions and complete and utter lack of invisible Jewmagic.
MazHere wrote:
However the point is, this is again NOT what evolutionists expected to find. This is common place.
Unexpected things can happen all the time. But as you said, the important thing is whether or not they falsify evolution. If they don't, then evolution remains unaffected. Sure, new research and discoveries can throw up a few surprises. But if evolution is not falsified then we don't have a problem. Now once you find a gross violation of nested hierarchies and explain how creationism can account for them (without resorting to taking the credit for evolutionary resarch) then do let us know.
MazHere wrote:
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.
Actually no it isn't. The reason being that merely falsifying evolution does NOT provide POSITIVE support for your position in any way whatsoever. Also your own position REQUIRES evolution, to such an extent that it far outstrips any real viable evolution rate. This paradox leads what you call "TEH FALL" to run in the completely OPPOSITE direction to Genesis and Noah's Flood. Leading you to (literally) invoke invisible Jewmagic to rescue your baseless suppositions. Rather than resolving your inherent lack of intellectual integrity you prefer to focus on taking evolutionary research out of context and spamming it back on the forum.

You're batting zero for zero so far Maz.

“Waytogo”

Since: Oct 09

Location hidden

#60350 Nov 23, 2012
FREE SERVANT wrote:
Agate stones are said to be from 200 to 400 million years old according to scientist. These stones have been found in Kentucky that have distinct pictures of native American Indians after they were cut in half. The Creator of the earth foreknew about the Indians. I personally think scientist have their timelines wrong.
HOLY CRAP....Your insane as heck. Please get mental help fast.

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Everton, Australia

#60351 Nov 23, 2012
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
Now another 3rd page of woffle with not a whiff of scientific backing to be seen to refute my assertions.
You keep saying you or others have provided a substantive reply. Then requote it. I dare you. You have provided nothing more than woffle. Woffle for the purpose of my point means no substantive refute backed by research to the suggestion that your evidence for evolution that is related to non coding dna, vestigial organs, organisms limitless ability to adapt is flawed.
Your opinion and bla mazhere is wrong is not evidence for anything. You have not provided any evidence nor argument that challenges anything I have said so far.
The fact is recent research supports the opposite of initial evolutionary claims, which so happens to align with general creationist long standing predictions.
How do you know the latest flavour of the month means anything at all? Is it because you have mountains of it? You can throw out all biology books older than 10 years as they are outdated. That is how stable TOE is.
It is funny how when I am accused of providing no support for my view I can immediately repost or requote previous posts that show you up to be the desperate liar that you are.
However when it comes to you, you just speak to empty words. Such is your desperation on obvious state of denial.
See?? Dah!!!
Junk dna the fantasy of desperate evos
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
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...
Are there any predictions that TOE can make around non coding dna and comparative similarity? The answer is NO.
Creationists can and on the above points of evidence suggest the research favours their predictions and turns evolutionary theory into a myth of change and unfalsifiability.
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.
If there is anything you have provided worth requoting then requote it or stop playing games of evasion and suck it up. You loose by default if nothing else.
Come on Dude you and many here like kitten & subductionzone have really big attitudes but have provided stuff all to support yourselves.

When evos get pinned they scurry off down the path to evasion and want to evade the point by using strategies such as changing the topic or posing non related questions, often of a philosophical smoke screen. Hence they can go around in circles for years and say absolutely nothing of substance.

Can you evos make any scientifically based predictions around dna or not?

I said creationists predict that NO dna will be totally functionless. Evos have gone from 2% to 80% functionality.

Who would any of you evos like to put your credibility on the line to be requoted in time that one day 100% of the genome will be known to have function? I say it will. Do disagree if you suggest this mere 20% left will remain support for TOE and stand the test of time.

OR, do you wish to withdraw all claims that non coding dna informs support for TOE at all?

OR just keep playing games of evasion, whereby creationists hold the upper hand here on this forum.
anonymous

Franklin, PA

#60352 Nov 23, 2012
ToManyLaws wrote:
<quoted text>
I know. Years ago I owned a house on an alley by a church. They would park in alley and acually park onto my grass,my yard ,my property. I put up a fence so they couldnt. One day one of these good church people hit my fence and had the nerve to try and sue me. LOL typical vile religous freaks. Then this church a few years later wanted to expand. they wanted to buy my land. I said no. Within 6 months I had a court order forceing me to sell my land do to some BS building code crap. RELIGION FORCED GOVERNMENT TO FORCE ME OUT OF MY HOME.
Yeah, that would piss me off! Was there any easements on your property for them to leverage?
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#60353 Nov 23, 2012
MazHere wrote:
It is funny how when I am accused of providing no support for my view I can immediately repost or requote previous posts that show you up to be the desperate liar that you are.
However when it comes to you, you just speak to empty words. Such is your desperation on obvious state of denial.[/QUTOE]

Oh, that must be why you ignored most of my post.(shrug)

[QUOTE who="MazHere"]
Are there any predictions that TOE can make around non coding dna and comparative similarity? The answer is NO.
Can and done. Can you do anything but copy-paste yourself over and over?
MazHere wrote:
Creationists can and on the above points of evidence suggest the research favours their predictions and turns evolutionary theory into a myth of change and unfalsifiability.
Potential falsifications of evolution were posted by me earlier today. Keep skipping, skippy.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#60354 Nov 23, 2012
MazHere wrote:
BTW, ervs are ghosts that you are chasing in supposed junk dna.
If they were junk they would not be referred to as ERV's.
MazHere wrote:
Ervs are found by algorithmic magic based on a tiny sequence that is purported to be similar to viral sequences but in fact, just like the rest of the genome, are vastly different.
To what?
MazHere wrote:
I am happy to take on ervs, not problem.
Go! State your case...
Let's see just ewhat you know before I start posting links to support myself on this topic of ghost chasing.
But would you actually address them or simply misrepresent evolutionary research like all the rest of the time?

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Everton, Australia

#60355 Nov 23, 2012
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
So let's see what they ACTUALLY said shall we?
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/332/6034/11...
"The proportional selective benefit for three of the four loci consistently decreased when they were introduced onto MORE FIT BACKGROUNDS. These three alleles all REDUCED MORPHOLOGICAL DEFECTS caused by expression of the foreign pathway. A simple theoretical model segregating the apparent contribution of individual alleles to benefits and costs EFFECTIVELY PREDICTED" (that's evolution science baby) "the interactions between them." (emphasis mine)
In other words the particular benefits of these loci were reduced overall when introduced into a focus already of a robust nature. It's like someone with $25 being given three $5 notes and someone else with $150 getting three $10 notes. The latter still feels a benefit but not as much as the first guy does. In other words the more fit something gets the less NOTICEABLE benefit from further successful adaptations. Note the BENEFITS occurring WITHOUT any declines in fitness, and also the LACK of creationist predictions and complete and utter lack of invisible Jewmagic.
<quoted text>
Listen here to me you are woffling agian.

What is it that you do not understand about this.

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.

It is self explanatary. Then you go on with some woffle about many that has absolutley nothing to do with the research.

Do you understand it all?
FREE SERVANT

Bellevue, WA

#60356 Nov 23, 2012
ToManyLaws wrote:
<quoted text>
HOLY CRAP....Your insane as heck. Please get mental help fast.
You guys can't handle the truth, can you?
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#60357 Nov 23, 2012
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
Come on Dude you and many here like kitten & subductionzone have really big attitudes but have provided stuff all to support yourselves.
When evos get pinned they scurry off down the path to evasion and want to evade the point by using strategies such as changing the topic or posing non related questions, often of a philosophical smoke screen. Hence they can go around in circles for years and say absolutely nothing of substance.
Can you evos make any scientifically based predictions around dna or not?
Yup.

http://www.topix.com/forum/news/evolution/T9Q...
MazHere wrote:
I said creationists predict that NO dna will be totally functionless. Evos have gone from 2% to 80% functionality.
Who would any of you evos like to put your credibility on the line to be requoted in time that one day 100% of the genome will be known to have function? I say it will. Do disagree if you suggest this mere 20% left will remain support for TOE and stand the test of time.
Function is not the problem, as already stated. It's the pattern of nested hierarchies that clinches it.
MazHere wrote:
OR, do you wish to withdraw all claims that non coding dna informs support for TOE at all?
OR just keep playing games of evasion, whereby creationists hold the upper hand here on this forum.
Evasion? That's all you've done for months. You keep doing that now. Your BS is rebutted and all you can do is posture and repost the same BS without addressing anything previous.

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Everton, Australia

#60358 Nov 23, 2012
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Can and done. Can you do anything but copy-paste yourself over and over?
<quoted text>
Potential falsifications of evolution were posted by me earlier today. Keep skipping, skippy.
Then repost them. They are easy to find in your control panel.

You keep making these claims yet I am the only one that seems to be able to requote a view supported by research and links to same

BTW, where is your woffly stand on ervs. Provide something for me to pull apart and demonstrate the assumption and folley that underpins all research on ervs.
anonymous

Franklin, PA

#60359 Nov 23, 2012
ToManyLaws wrote:
<quoted text>
Naiz fascism as a freligion is vile and evil. What you think is right the rest of us think is nasty.
That might be a bit overly condemning of Christianity. The early Christians were a bit zealous but they did have quite a humanistic ideology once you released yourself from the trappings of aristocracy and organized demagoguery.

I can't say that any Christians currently embrace that but I'll listen.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#60360 Nov 23, 2012
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
You absolutely have no idea what supporting your view looks like, do you?
I say the research supports Sanford and have explained why.
And I explained why he is wrong.(shrug)
MazHere wrote:
You come back with a load of woffle about Gish. I don't give a stuff about Gish. I can run my own race.
This is why you lot of evos are gobsmacked. If you can't prattle some prewritten response to the usual creationist lines you are totally lost like Alice in Wonderland.
You are lost and are gobsmacked and unable to mount any substantive reply and never ever have.
Which is why AGAIN you are not attempting a rebuttal. And AGAIN you are completely ignoring the inconsistencies of your own position. And AGAIN ignoring the fact that should some great miracle occur and you were somehow able to falsify evolution, I can just invoke magic and STILL be on a level playing field.

You can't win. You can only lie and encourage the same behaviour in your fellow fundies.

Remember, God is watching...

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Everton, Australia

#60361 Nov 23, 2012
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
Now another 3rd page of woffle with not a whiff of scientific backing to be seen to refute my assertions.
You keep saying you or others have provided a substantive reply. Then requote it. I dare you. You have provided nothing more than woffle. Woffle for the purpose of my point means no substantive refute backed by research to the suggestion that your evidence for evolution that is related to non coding dna, vestigial organs, organisms limitless ability to adapt is flawed.
Your opinion and bla mazhere is wrong is not evidence for anything. You have not provided any evidence nor argument that challenges anything I have said so far.
The fact is recent research supports the opposite of initial evolutionary claims, which so happens to align with general creationist long standing predictions.
How do you know the latest flavour of the month means anything at all? Is it because you have mountains of it? You can throw out all biology books older than 10 years as they are outdated. That is how stable TOE is.
It is funny how when I am accused of providing no support for my view I can immediately repost or requote previous posts that show you up to be the desperate liar that you are.
However when it comes to you, you just speak to empty words. Such is your desperation on obvious state of denial.
See?? Dah!!!
Junk dna the fantasy of desperate evos
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
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...
Are there any predictions that TOE can make around non coding dna and comparative similarity? The answer is NO.
Creationists can and on the above points of evidence suggest the research favours their predictions and turns evolutionary theory into a myth of change and unfalsifiability.
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.
If there is anything you have provided worth requoting then requote it or stop playing games of evasion and suck it up. You loose by default if nothing else.
You see this above. This is me being able to requote substantive posts and views that are supported by links to research.

All you can do and talk about is how you wish you were equally articulate and speak to your imagined substantive replies that you can never find.
FREE SERVANT

Bellevue, WA

#60362 Nov 23, 2012
ToManyLaws wrote:
<quoted text>
HOLY CRAP....Your insane as heck. Please get mental help fast.
I meant when the stones were cut in half they had distinct pictures in them. What did you think I meant?
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#60363 Nov 23, 2012
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
Then repost them. They are easy to find in your control panel.
And they are easy to find on this thread.(shrug)
MazHere wrote:
You keep making these claims yet I am the only one that seems to be able to requote a view supported by research and links to same
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed...

329724 current papers on evolution. You may find the occasional IDCreationist one, but you won't be fond of their conclusions. Which of my claims do you think are NOT supported by research? Oh wait - that's why you haven't addressed them yet. Only misrepresented evolutionary biologists instead.

Remember you can't claim unreliable evolutionary biologists prove unreliable evolution wrong with unreliable evolutionary biology. That's intellectual dishonesty to the core.

And then you take one mighty leap further and claim GODDIDIT WITH MAGIC!
MazHere wrote:
BTW, where is your woffly stand on ervs. Provide something for me to pull apart and demonstrate the assumption and folley that underpins all research on ervs.
Like I said, you haven't even gotten around to the rest yet. But the fact we share nearly 200,000 of these with the other great apes is a start.

“Waytogo”

Since: Oct 09

Location hidden

#60364 Nov 23, 2012
FREE SERVANT wrote:
<quoted text>I meant when the stones were cut in half they had distinct pictures in them. What did you think I meant?
I knew what you meant. I have read the total LIE BS story also. That whole deal has been disproven as a fake. But you do liek to believe in made up BS dont you.
anonymous

Franklin, PA

#60365 Nov 23, 2012
FREE SERVANT wrote:
Agate stones are said to be from 200 to 400 million years old according to scientist. These stones have been found in Kentucky that have distinct pictures of native American Indians after they were cut in half. The Creator of the earth foreknew about the Indians. I personally think scientist have their timelines wrong.
OK, that isn't too clear on any level. Are you suggesting that humanity is 200 to 400 million years old? What was cut in half? Stones or Indians? Either way, what is implied by cutting things in half? Are you implying that God "knew" about Indians but was not directly involved in their creation? WTF?
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#60366 Nov 23, 2012
MazHere wrote:
Oh and you would know for sure on the back of a big bang model where physics breaks down at the singularity. On the back of a model that suggests 96% of the universe is dark energy, a substance they know nothing about except it makes their physics less problematic.
Except when calculations are made against observable astronomical phenomena under the Dark Matter hypothesis they prove to be correct. They are in the correct positions. No other model (such as modified gravity) can do this so far.
MazHere wrote:
How about this theory that you all like to ignore. This will never take off because it actually makes sense and does not require the mystery of dark matter and energy.
It's an apologetics bastardization of relativity, and ignores the fact that it would work with ANY other space body being the center of the universe. Oh, except the Bible sez the Earth is important therefore it's GOTTA be Earth in the middle! How's that GODMAGIC theory coming along? Still zip?
MazHere wrote:
Hence one can believe in a theory that breaks down and makes the earth not special or one can choose another equally credible theory.
BTW, I also can present research that suggest intergalactic shadows are missing causing challenges to the validity of big bang.
While at the same time ignoring positive predictions like the prediction of background radiation levels to 1 part in 300,000. Theory may not be perfect but you only got magic as an alternative.
MazHere wrote:
The one thing that supports a biblical Gods ability to create instantly is that there is now research that proves energy can turn to matter.
Of course it can. Matter IS energy.
MazHere wrote:
What is God described as? Energy and light. What is the primary matter of the universe according to researchers...energy contained within a singularity the physics of which also breaks down at that instant of creation. So here again is support for yet another biblical assertion and a creationist view that the primary matter of the universe will be made from the substance of God. Done!
Except you have no mechanism or scientifically verifiable source. Hence semantic word-games are used to claim physics supports invisible Jewmagic.

So precisely what type of energy is God made of?
MazHere wrote:
The statement that a source of power can create matter has been established. That is suportive data on creos behalf
That view is as good if not better than anything you can provide, despite big bangs general acceptance.
Translation - "The existence of the universe supports Godmagic because the Bible sez God created the universe!"

Well done.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#60368 Nov 23, 2012
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
No serious takers only those wanting to philosophise.
Great! That means I win.
My winning means evos cannot defend their theory, or at least the ones on this forum certainly can't.
Of course I can. You haven't falsified it yet. You haven't addressed it yet. I admit I can't beat invisible Jewmagic, but then non-falsifiable non-scientific concepts such as that can easily be dismissed.

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
JUST SAY SOMETHING. Whatever comes to mind!! (Aug '09) 8 min Hoosier Hillbilly 29,003
Write sentences with the first letter following... 8 min Grace Nerissa 64
What song are you listening to right now? (Apr '08) 9 min I Am No One_ 161,821
Create "short sentences using the last word" (Aug '12) 11 min Hoosier Hillbilly 8,393
2015: "Make a Story/ 6 Words Only: 12 min Grace Nerissa 182
Say Something Nice. (Oct '09) 15 min Debra27 2,710
Whatcha' doing? (Apr '12) 16 min Debra27 8,409
El's Kitchen (Feb '09) 1 hr Grace Nerissa 40,269
News Baltimore Mom Catches Her Son Rioting, Beats Hi... 1 hr Observer 179
Word Association 2 (Sep '13) 5 hr Jennifer Renee 10,908
More from around the web