Evolution vs. Creation

Evolution vs. Creation

There are 173844 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.

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Everton, Australia

#60377 Nov 23, 2012
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
And they are easy to find on this thread.(shrug)
<quoted text>
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!
<quoted text>
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.
I have already won because you have not offered anything of substance around junk dna. You keep saying you have but can't requote anything. Therefore I win the point that evos can make no predictions around junk dna, creos can, and creos have mounting evidence to support same while evos are left to pick up the pices and invent a brand new story.

You have not gone anywhere near the above in addressing my claims. These points above are substantiated at present by the current flavour if the month provided by your own evo researchers.

Similarly any and every support for TOE can be found to be equally flawed and based on biased and circular magic.

As for Gods ability to create I have spoken to it by stating that there is evidence that energy can be turned into matter. This is a fact. Here is the assumption and hypothesis....If energy can turn matter into a sun or planet then energy can create an organism much smaller that is made up entirely of the elements of the earth.

Now you can talk about your version of abiogenesis that evos separate from TOE out of shame. Your many theories and lack of ability to make a living reproductive organism in a controlled environment is not better than anything I can come up with. You just have more woffle and history in your guesswork and libraries of outdated work that goes from ponds to ocean springs.

Again you refer to some refute that is ficticious. Post your research around these 200 shared ervs and stop being lazy. Or do I have to post it for you?

So ervs were meant to be functionless remnants of infections past were they? Now they appear to be proving to be vital in some instances.eg mammalian pregnancy.

So which supports TOE functionless ervs or functional ervs?

Or doesn't it matter?

All ERVs in humans are extinct retroviruses. The viruses in your genome right now have no homologues in our population that infect modern humans. The only two retroviruses that are real ‘normal’ human pathogens are HIV and HTLV. HIV is a lentivirus– there are very, very few endogenous lentiviruses (found one in bunbuns, another in lemurs). HTLV is a deltaretrovirus– I am not aware of any endogenous deltaretroviruses.

Our ERVs are only distantly related to exogenous viruses that infect other organisms. That is, MLV is a gammaretrovirus, but our Class I retroviruses (related to gamma and epsilonretroviruses) are not literally MLV. Likewise, our Class II (related to alphas and betas) are not literally ALV or MMTV.

So to put it a different way, our youngest ERVs, HERV-Ks, are as similar to HIV-1, a modern infectious virus, as humans are to Methanobacterium thermoautotrophicum.

In other words, researchers have assumed via their algorithmic magic that these ghosts called ervs may resemble some virus that once was that they actually have not seen and really have no idea about. How comvincing! Not!
FREE SERVANT

Bellevue, WA

#60378 Nov 23, 2012
anonymous wrote:
<quoted text>
...and the point is?
The Creator of the earth foreknew about birds and Indians.

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Everton, Australia

#60379 Nov 23, 2012
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
So what you're saying is that you can't get invisible Jewmagic published in the scientific arena because of the evil atheist world-wide evolutionist conspiracy, so you're publishing it yourselves, peer-reviewing it yourselves, and pretending it's relevant to science. Got it.
Oh, and you're still contradicting yourself and still wiping out all life on Earth multiple times over, still relying on reality-denying YEC's who also contradict themselves, still pretending that negative arguments against evolution automatically count as positive evidence for creationism, and still fixing any and all problems with invisible Jewmagic.
I am not a jew but you certainly are a boofhead.

Answer some with some science and stop with your evasion. It is seriously obvious now.

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#60380 Nov 23, 2012
FREE SERVANT wrote:
<quoted text>The Creator of the earth foreknew about birds and Indians.
You are really crazy. I suppose clouds know about trees, buildings, dogs, and cats.
anonymous

Franklin, PA

#60381 Nov 23, 2012
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
The basis for the NT is to forgive, turn the other cheek and pray for your enemies. It is hard to be perfect. The OT condemns killing for any other reason than is directly controlled by God. Anything more than this comes from the reasonings of man that are often peddled as scripture. Many scriptures warn of this.
That is why I do not adhere to any particular faith and simply call myself a Christian with a preference for creationist predictive capability.
The Crusades and all the examples of Christendom at its worst does not negate the concept of the peace that the NT and Christianity are meant to reflect.
The bible, including the NT, is the only spiritual text where the composers did not take glory for themselves and did not live in shameless luxury as a result of profits from their teachings. That is almost a miracle! For me this puts the bible and the NT above and beyond any other spiritual text.
Of course this has little to do with the evolution/creation debate. However, I think I can give up on evos coming up with anything better than what I and others can present as creationists. The point is the supposed evidence for TOE is not that crash hot after all. TOE is supported by whatever flavour of the month is on offer.
And yet, you're defending literal interpretations of the Old Testament. I just consider this something that independent Christians have to work out. Do you take instructions from the Church or your own understanding of the New Testament? Most creationist seem to think they are more qualified than the Church but I've rarely seen any complexity to their arguments.

Generally, I consider the New Testament a set of parables on rebellion against an overwhelming master, such as the Romans. Not all of its stories are consistent with the others. It has mutated over time to become an evangelical tool of conquering states.

The Old Testament is a rigid set of rules by which the religious and state aristocracies can override popular culture as they see fit. The status quo will take care of the malcontents.

Both segments of Judeo/Christian culture require a garbage can where they can dispose of conflicts deemed too trivial for the orthodoxy to address. That's bang-on where you'll find the wedge issues of political debate. Religion matters! Logic doesn't mean jack! As much as I'd like to do the right thing, I feel obligated to deny gay marriage AND right to life agendas because they aren't about doing the right thing, and endorsing either will just escalate the game to the next level.

Sorry. There isn't and won't be a scrap of faith in any point I make here.

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Everton, Australia

#60382 Nov 23, 2012
FREE SERVANT wrote:
<quoted text>The Creator of the earth foreknew about birds and Indians.
Yes and there is evidence that indeed birds were created and did not evolve.

Look at this.....

Nonetheless, Melchor cautiously avoids saying birds made the prints. "These bird-like footprints can only be attributed to an unknown group of theropods showing some avian characteristics," he writes in the journal Nature.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn2466-an...

So here researchers have found modern bird fottprints that display a reversed hallux. A reversed hallux has always been the signature feature of a MODERN BIRD.

Now these researchers are trying to attribute them to an unknown theropod because it suits them, and convergent evolution is the buzz excuse these days, and one is trying to resurrect protoavis that has been crushed by the scientific community. Well done evos!

There are plenty of evo researchers that do not accept the dino to bird line anyway.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/02/...
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/07/...

How about a novel idea for once!! Maybe they are exactly what they appear to be. That would be evidence of modern birds thriving 212 million years ago and more than half way to the devonian where they are meant to have been created after the creatures of the sea.

The above interpretation of the bird footprint data does not support current evolutionary theory in relation to bird evolution. However this data can be seen as being supportive of a creationist paradigm.

Given that the fossilization of small and hollow boned birds is a rare event, this is an excellent find in support of creation and a headache for evolutionists!

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Everton, Australia

#60383 Nov 23, 2012
anonymous wrote:
<quoted text>
And yet, you're defending literal interpretations of the Old Testament. I just consider this something that independent Christians have to work out. Do you take instructions from the Church or your own understanding of the New Testament? Most creationist seem to think they are more qualified than the Church but I've rarely seen any complexity to their arguments.
Generally, I consider the New Testament a set of parables on rebellion against an overwhelming master, such as the Romans. Not all of its stories are consistent with the others. It has mutated over time to become an evangelical tool of conquering states.
The Old Testament is a rigid set of rules by which the religious and state aristocracies can override popular culture as they see fit. The status quo will take care of the malcontents.
Both segments of Judeo/Christian culture require a garbage can where they can dispose of conflicts deemed too trivial for the orthodoxy to address. That's bang-on where you'll find the wedge issues of political debate. Religion matters! Logic doesn't mean jack! As much as I'd like to do the right thing, I feel obligated to deny gay marriage AND right to life agendas because they aren't about doing the right thing, and endorsing either will just escalate the game to the next level.
Sorry. There isn't and won't be a scrap of faith in any point I make here.
Now he's wofling on about gay marriage, OMG you are a looser.
May God have mercy on you and get you to heaven despite it.

I will simply keep reposting my post until you or some evo comes up with some appropriate reply or find one of these mysterious past replies that you have invented out of that poor little forgetful and hopeful mind of yours.
FREE SERVANT

Bellevue, WA

#60384 Nov 23, 2012
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>You are really crazy. I suppose clouds know about trees, buildings, dogs, and cats.
I'm telling you the truth. Jesus said men would hate me for the truths sake, it doen't scare me.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#60385 Nov 23, 2012
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes and there is evidence that indeed birds were created and did not evolve.
Look at this.....
Nonetheless, Melchor cautiously avoids saying birds made the prints. "These bird-like footprints can only be attributed to an unknown group of theropods showing some avian characteristics," he writes in the journal Nature.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn2466-an...
So here researchers have found modern bird fottprints that display a reversed hallux. A reversed hallux has always been the signature feature of a MODERN BIRD.
Now these researchers are trying to attribute them to an unknown theropod because it suits them, and convergent evolution is the buzz excuse these days, and one is trying to resurrect protoavis that has been crushed by the scientific community. Well done evos!
There are plenty of evo researchers that do not accept the dino to bird line anyway.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/02/...
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/07/...
How about a novel idea for once!! Maybe they are exactly what they appear to be. That would be evidence of modern birds thriving 212 million years ago and more than half way to the devonian where they are meant to have been created after the creatures of the sea.
The above interpretation of the bird footprint data does not support current evolutionary theory in relation to bird evolution. However this data can be seen as being supportive of a creationist paradigm.
Given that the fossilization of small and hollow boned birds is a rare event, this is an excellent find in support of creation and a headache for evolutionists!
Hardly. Yes, the modern bird has a reverse hallux, big whoop. Archaeopteryx did not have a reversed hallux, so it seems you are saying it is not a modern bird but some sort of transitional animal, I agree.

And it there were a several species of dinosaurs that chiefly lived in trees but did not fly it still would not be unreasonable for them to develop a reversed hallux. That simple sort of evolution can happen several times over.

And you still have not posted anything that would give an evolutionary scientist any pause at all.

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Everton, Australia

#60386 Nov 23, 2012
MazHere wrote:
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. If I am wrong please provide them, with links.

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.
When any of you wishful thinkers can come up with an appropriate reply instead of woffling on about gays, and bibles and philsosophy and what the heck you think, then you can justifiably go onto another topic of destraction.

For now, this thread was started by the professor who spoke specifically to junk dna.

I have provided evidence that you evos have changed your mind again and indeed make no predictions around non coding dna. All functional or all functionless its all a merry ride of story telling for evos

Not so with me. Indeed creationist predictions on non coding dna are being supported, whether you evos like it or not. Isn't that just fantastic!!!!!!
anonymous

Franklin, PA

#60387 Nov 23, 2012
FREE SERVANT wrote:
<quoted text>The Creator of the earth foreknew about birds and Indians.
Maybe I'm overlooking something, but wouldn't that be implicit if the creator was the creator?.... and don't get too mystical about Indian culture. I can't prove it, but I'm convinced that my ancestry is multi-racial, probably including some Appalachian Cherokee.

I perceive the Native-American as pre-urban in their psychology. They are noble by nature and resent being forced to think like an urban rat just to get along. Understanding the honorable choice is not easily suppressed in them so the need of a God who threatens to damn them to hell is just profane to their entire nature.

As much as anything, you'll have to get past that fundamental focus of the Native American ego before you can talk about God to me. After that, well.... I've got some very interesting problems for you to solve.

Here's one. Suppose that some races include behavioral algorithms that meet the core rules of behavior strategies of that race, but are then overlaid with animal algorithms. Caucasians are extroverts by nature. Don't expect them to be able to handle that kind of duality. Now, is it honorable for said individuals to uphold the honorable nature of their overlay algorithm as well as the conventions of the larger human community.

You might say that existentially, they only are entitled to uphold the will of the community.....but they may have children who are immature and need some shelter while finding their own identity. Can we expect the humans to respect their space? Doubt it!!!

The Church IS a bronze age relic that isn't even slightly ready to address the complexities of people who have evolved outside of the Mediterranean region. They are already dead, cursed to go on attempting to stuff round pegs into square holes, pretending that deep inside, we are all the same. It's all over except the final war and redistribution of wealth.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#60388 Nov 23, 2012
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes and there is evidence that indeed birds were created and did not evolve.
Look at this.....
Nonetheless, Melchor cautiously avoids saying birds made the prints. "These bird-like footprints can only be attributed to an unknown group of theropods showing some avian characteristics," he writes in the journal Nature.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn2466-an...
So here researchers have found modern bird fottprints that display a reversed hallux. A reversed hallux has always been the signature feature of a MODERN BIRD.
Now these researchers are trying to attribute them to an unknown theropod because it suits them, and convergent evolution is the buzz excuse these days, and one is trying to resurrect protoavis that has been crushed by the scientific community. Well done evos!
There are plenty of evo researchers that do not accept the dino to bird line anyway.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/02/...
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/07/...
How about a novel idea for once!! Maybe they are exactly what they appear to be. That would be evidence of modern birds thriving 212 million years ago and more than half way to the devonian where they are meant to have been created after the creatures of the sea.
The above interpretation of the bird footprint data does not support current evolutionary theory in relation to bird evolution. However this data can be seen as being supportive of a creationist paradigm.
Given that the fossilization of small and hollow boned birds is a rare event, this is an excellent find in support of creation and a headache for evolutionists!
Mav, don't you even read the articles that you link? Neither disputed birds to dinosaur in any way. And we have known for some time that quite a few nonflying dinosaurs had feathers. It makes sense that the original purpose of feathers was heat conservation and not for aviation. There is even a well preserved mother or father dinosaur that was covered quickly while brooding. The animals posture only made sense if it was warm blooded, had feathers, and was keeping its nest warm.
anonymous

Franklin, PA

#60389 Nov 23, 2012
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
Now he's wofling on about gay marriage, OMG you are a looser.
May God have mercy on you and get you to heaven despite it.
I will simply keep reposting my post until you or some evo comes up with some appropriate reply or find one of these mysterious past replies that you have invented out of that poor little forgetful and hopeful mind of yours.
I believe the word you're looking for is "loser".

Anyway, it seems that you're into empty posturing so I won't pose any moral questions to you, and you just aren't presenting good science. Don't bother me with your labels that are part of your own special and personal vocabulary. If you'd like to debate again, ask questions rather than repost nonsense that has already been addressed.

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Everton, Australia

#60390 Nov 23, 2012
FREE SERVANT wrote:
<quoted text>I'm telling you the truth. Jesus said men would hate me for the truths sake, it doen't scare me.
Yes Jesus said that of those that follow him. However all faiths are hated by someone. I also expect to be hated by most and love it for similar reasons.

Spirituality is one of the great abilities that no other biological organism has. Maslow even suggested that the highest need is spirituality. This is above all and separates mankind right away from the basic needs of other animals like food or socialization.

To attain spirituality one needs other traits that separate man from beast. eg sophisticated language, higher reasoning ability and abstract thought that enables us think about such a concept.

Of course Kitten and many evos and all atheists would rather be a souless ape. Atheists in particular do not display the higher ability of spirituality. Instead they waste their time trying to think of why those that have faiths are delusional. I say sad for them!

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Everton, Australia

#60391 Nov 23, 2012
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Mav, don't you even read the articles that you link? Neither disputed birds to dinosaur in any way. And we have known for some time that quite a few nonflying dinosaurs had feathers. It makes sense that the original purpose of feathers was heat conservation and not for aviation. There is even a well preserved mother or father dinosaur that was covered quickly while brooding. The animals posture only made sense if it was warm blooded, had feathers, and was keeping its nest warm.
Yes I read them and the first one says this

The weight of the evidence is now suggesting that not only did birds not descend from dinosaurs, Ruben said, but that some species now believed to be dinosaurs may have descended from birds.

"We're finally breaking out of the conventional wisdom of the last 20 years, which insisted that birds evolved from dinosaurs and that the debate is all over and done with," Ruben said. "This issue isn't resolved at all. There are just too many inconsistencies with the idea that birds had dinosaur ancestors, and this newest study adds to that."

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/02/...

Of course it is easier for you to chase your tail on this aside that the point which is modern bird footprints can aptly be interpreted as being evidence of modern birds thriving more than half way back to the devonian.

Your reply again says nothing about junk dna, does not refute a word I said and you have yet to requote one of these great replies you appear to imagine you have posted.

You can't repost them because they do not exist.

My evidence that suggests 80% functional non coding dna is support for a creationist paradigm and has had to get evos running around in circles yet again to come up with some woffle to explain the change and why their previous work is either refuted or never was valid.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#60392 Nov 23, 2012
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
The basis for the NT is to forgive, turn the other cheek and pray for your enemies. It is hard to be perfect. The OT condemns killing for any other reason than is directly controlled by God. Anything more than this comes from the reasonings of man that are often peddled as scripture. Many scriptures warn of this.
That is why I do not adhere to any particular faith and simply call myself a Christian with a preference for creationist predictive capability.
What does it have to say on the existence of fossils with feathers and three middle ear bones?

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#60393 Nov 23, 2012
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes Jesus said that of those that follow him. However all faiths are hated by someone. I also expect to be hated by most and love it for similar reasons.
Spirituality is one of the great abilities that no other biological organism has. Maslow even suggested that the highest need is spirituality. This is above all and separates mankind right away from the basic needs of other animals like food or socialization.
To attain spirituality one needs other traits that separate man from beast. eg sophisticated language, higher reasoning ability and abstract thought that enables us think about such a concept.
Of course Kitten and many evos and all atheists would rather be a souless ape. Atheists in particular do not display the higher ability of spirituality. Instead they waste their time trying to think of why those that have faiths are delusional. I say sad for them!
... and Mohamed said that people would hate the Muslims. So does that mean their religion is real too?
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#60394 Nov 23, 2012
MazHere wrote:
As for Gods ability to create I have spoken to it by stating that there is evidence that energy can be turned into matter. This is a fact. Here is the assumption and hypothesis....If energy can turn matter into a sun or planet then energy can create an organism much smaller that is made up entirely of the elements of the earth.
This does nothing to support God's existence, much less the mechanisms it used to do whatever it is you think it did. Matter and energy exist. You claim an intelligent being manipulated it to form the universe and everything in it. Now you need to demonstrate it.
MazHere wrote:
Post your research around these 200 shared ervs and stop being lazy. Or do I have to post it for you?
So ervs were meant to be functionless remnants of infections past were they? Now they appear to be proving to be vital in some instances.eg mammalian pregnancy.
So is your claim they aren't ERV's? Then what are they, why are they called ERV's and why do they look like ERV's? And so what if they are required for mammalian pregnancy?
MazHere wrote:
So which supports TOE functionless ervs or functional ervs?
Or doesn't it matter?
All ERVs in humans are extinct retroviruses. The viruses in your genome right now have no homologues in our population that infect modern humans. The only two retroviruses that are real ‘normal’ human pathogens are HIV and HTLV. HIV is a lentivirus– there are very, very few endogenous lentiviruses (found one in bunbuns, another in lemurs). HTLV is a deltaretrovirus– I am not aware of any endogenous deltaretroviruses.
Our ERVs are only distantly related to exogenous viruses that infect other organisms. That is, MLV is a gammaretrovirus, but our Class I retroviruses (related to gamma and epsilonretroviruses) are not literally MLV. Likewise, our Class II (related to alphas and betas) are not literally ALV or MMTV.
So to put it a different way, our youngest ERVs, HERV-Ks, are as similar to HIV-1, a modern infectious virus, as humans are to Methanobacterium thermoautotrophicum.
So we share none at all whatsoever with any other organisms other than humans?
MazHere wrote:
In other words, researchers have assumed via their algorithmic magic that these ghosts called ervs may resemble some virus that once was that they actually have not seen and really have no idea about. How comvincing! Not!
Not assumed. They have the protein makeup of ERV's. Scientists can even look at an ERV in the genome and then acquire the same proteins, put them together artificially the result acting exactly like a retrovirus.

http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2006/11/f...

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Everton, Australia

#60395 Nov 23, 2012
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
What does it have to say on the existence of fossils with feathers and three middle ear bones?
Again you gobble on about ervs and then when I reply you scurry of Dude.

You can't even answer your own question in relation to evolution!
The bible says that birds were created after the creatures of the sea and the fossil evidence, bird footprints dated to 212mya, is appearing to support this.

Whale bones were also found in Michagan in strata that was dated to 290mya.

http://nancysmith54.newsvine.com/_news/2008/1...

Now lets see what evos have to support all the gobble about whale ancestry. Ah yes. They have pretty picture of pakicetus, indohyus, abmulocetus natans and then basilosaurus. These are simply a misrepresentation because they are not a line of descent.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/44867222/ns/techn...

Oh yeah, you have basilosaurus that is dated to before its supposed ancestor Indohyus at 48mya. Well done!

And still no evo can justify how current research into the functionality of 80% of non coding dna does not support creationism and its predictions nor how any percentage of junk dna is meant to support evolution or not. Such is the folley and unfalsifiability of TOE.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#60396 Nov 23, 2012
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
I am not a jew but you certainly are a boofhead.
Answer some with some science and stop with your evasion. It is seriously obvious now.
Doesn't matter if you're not a Jew. It's their religion. Jesus, king of the Jews (you may have heard of him) was born and raised a Jew.

Hence invisible magic Jewish wizard. How is that scientifically inaccurate? And why ask me to answer with science when you haven't addressed it for a long long time? Projection-ometer working overtime again?

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
CHANGE One letter CHANCE (Sep '08) 7 min SweLL GirL 32,749
True False Game (Jun '11) 8 min SweLL GirL 10,044
Change-one-of-six-letters (Dec '12) 9 min SweLL GirL 5,910
Change 1 letter game! (Nov '11) 10 min SweLL GirL 5,153
6 letter word~change 2 letters 13 min Hoosier Hillbilly 75
~`*`~ Create a sentence using the 'letters' of ... (Oct '12) 13 min Hoosier Hillbilly 2,675
The Yes/No Game (May '11) 18 min Hoosier Hillbilly 7,980
2015: "Make a Story/ 6 Words Only: 24 min Hoosier Hillbilly 2,498
El's Kitchen (Feb '09) 32 min Hot 98 43,729
What song are you listening to right now? (Apr '08) 1 hr SLY WEST 169,500
Words that annoy you? 4 hr jimmy krack korn 23
JUST SAY SOMETHING. Whatever comes to mind!! (Aug '09) 5 hr Lucy 29,735
More from around the web