Evolution vs. Creation

[timn17]

MazHere wrote:

<quoted text>
Unfortunately, the evolutionary fiasco played out like the changing scenes and scenarios that support the overarching TOE is much like any bed time story and cannot be proven to not exist. That is why TOE is virtually unfalsifiable and does not meet the a credible standard of falsifiability.
Hence, my question in relation to evolutionists predictions around non coding dna. What supports TOE? If in 50 years time it is demonstrated that all of the genome is functional, as creationists predict, what then? Does that mean TOE is flse?
Not on Darwins death bed! Hence although TOE can make a few scant predictions, it is virtually unfalsifiable and has little predictability.
All faiths can interpret data to suit themselves and come up with their own algorithmic magic to support themselves.
I think to be closed to only one view is problematic.
The thing is it seriously looks like creos are on better tracks than evos.
General creationist predictions on junk dna and so called vestigal organs are being supported more as time goes on. That appears to be a fact. These are stable predictions.
If proven in time, I suggest evolutionists will have lost a huge support for evolutionary theory, despite any handwaving they come up with to explain it.

Are you under the impression that the "non coding dna fiasco," as you call it, is the downfall of the TOE? It's a footnote. It does not affect the overall soundness of the theory. At all. I have a video for you. It explains, in detail, why you are a blithering idiot. Enjoy. It's sped up - to force as much information into your tiny mind in as short a time as possible.

http://www.youtube.com/watch...

[MazHere]

It is usually evos that say creos don't want to talk science and all you evos appear to be doing is scurrying as far away from science as possible.
Every statement I have made I can support from your own researchers. If all you can do is say ' TOE is right because they said so, then I say, that 'they' have been wrong many many times before.eg human knucklewalking ancestry, junk dna, 2 turned to three domains of life, the death of single celled LUCA, brain size tied to bipedalism, Mendellian inheritance being the only form of inheritance refuted by HGT and epigentic inheritance etc.

I can support the scientific statements I make in previous posts and here.
The consortium has assigned some sort of function to roughly 80% of the genome, including more than 70,000 ‘promoter’ regions — the sites, just upstream of genes, where proteins bind to control gene expression — and nearly 400,000 ‘enhancer’ regions that regulate expression of distant genes
http://www.nature.com/news/encode-the-human-e ...
I have stated, in line with the thread topic, that evos have woffled on about junk dna being absolute proof of evolution. That claim is slowly turning to mud. Toe is made of these little balls of rot that are offered as support but are no more than flavour of the month.
A creationist prediction is, and has always been, that in time it will be found that all dna will be found to be functional. The same goes for vestigial organs.
This prediction is being validated as time goes on as any good prediction should. This is opposed to evolutionary theory that generally comprises flavour of the month.
So what say you evos about junk dna? What supports TOE? Some junk, no junk, all junk, how much junk?????? TOE is an anything goes theory with the hit and miss predictability of a crystal ball.
Toe is a philosophy of faith (No need for God) just like any other and is, just like any other faith, trying to find some support for its credibility. Theist evos just have their own slant and IDers are somewhere in the middle.

None of you can answer this above. You can woffle on, and say bla bla, but not one of you has had a word to say about the above.

I am not misrepresenting anything. I do not represent any particular form of creationism.

The thread topic is around junk dna. If you want to continue to go around in cirlces and make vague statements then this is what has been demonstrated.

On the whole evolutionists have not been able to speak to junk dna and its implications for creation or evolution.

Indeed there are no implications for TOE because it is virtually unfalsifiable as are all faiths.

However creationists are much better at making stable predictions.

So as far as the thread topic is concerned the Professor, whatever faith he is, has a good point.

[timn17]

Charles Idemi wrote:

<quoted text> Your opinion.

God I love you. You give me hope that maybe, someday, I can smack myself in the head hard enough that I regress to the blissfully unaware mental state of a small child. The way you can be so aggressively stupid about so many things, all the time - well, it's inspiring in a strange sort of way. You are proof positive that ignorance is bliss, and I envy your autistic majesty.

[timn17]

MazHere wrote:

<quoted text>
All creationists please not a person that has many word and not one shred of support.
Look pal, when you klearn what an actual refute should look like I'll give you are serious reply.
For now you are just a woffler without a link or science to be seen.

I don't want a "serious reply" from you. I told you, I know what your "serious replies" look like - all you do is regurgitate the same tired apologist garbage you heard pastor bob say on sunday. Others have told you this already. You aren't worth engaging in debate, because all you want to do is spam illogical nonsense. I just wanted to tell you that I was amused by you. It's funny that people who are supposedly fulfilled by their religion feel the need to go and whine about a scientific theory that is completely unrelated to their belief.

Also, I thought you should know, refute is not a noun.

Also, one cannot "have" science to be seen.

[KittenKoder]

Charles Idemi wrote:

<quoted text> Hogwash!!!
Your hatred for christianity will take you no where.

Well, if science is a "hatred for christian" ... then you are 10000% wrong, because it took us to the moon, gave us the internet, and some really fun games to play.

[Tinka]

Uhhh yeah we always lived on Plastic Earth sure thang...

Please exit quietly...pssss

[Tinka]

ok so who hadn't had a giant creature?

[KittenKoder]

Tinka wrote:

ok so who hadn't had a giant creature?

That would be the christians.

Oh wait, the Greeks.

No, the Romans.

Oh, the Egyptians.

Yeah, then Incans.

Hmm, the Aztecs.

Certainly the Sumerians.

I'm runking ducked.

[Charles Idemi]

timn17 wrote:

<quoted text>I have a tip, for you. Stop using commas, so much. They make you sound, stupid.

Thanks, but that does not change the subject and your stupidity.

[Charles Idemi]

timn17 wrote:

<quoted text>God I love you. You give me hope that maybe, someday, I can smack myself in the head hard enough that I regress to the blissfully unaware mental state of a small child. The way you can be so aggressively stupid about so many things, all the time - well, it's inspiring in a strange sort of way. You are proof positive that ignorance is bliss, and I envy your autistic majesty.

Dull !!!

[Charles Idemi]

KittenKoder wrote:

<quoted text>
Well, if science is a "hatred for christian" ... then you are 10000% wrong, because it took us to the moon, gave us the internet, and some really fun games to play.

To God be the glory.
Without God, there is no earth or universe( planets).

[ChristineM]

The Dude wrote:

<quoted text>
Mikey got hit on the head by a meteorite with the face of Jesus in it.
Which is actually still more sane than Wolvie's Bigfoot or Chuck's... well, anything.

I really though everyone was more sane that wolfie until Charlie Idiot came along

Do you know where wolfie has got to?, I’ve not come across his distinctive drivel for a few weeks?

[ToManyLaws]

If creation is real who created the creator? I mean if nothing can just POOF into being a creator cant POOF into being either.

[Subduction Zone]

You_tube_dude_ wrote:

<quoted text>
Evidence of creationism is simply this...."Faith".

Faith is not evidence. So you are claiming that there is no evidence for creationism. I agree.

[Subduction Zone]

MazHere wrote:

<quoted text>
Unfortunately, the evolutionary fiasco played out like the changing scenes and scenarios that support the overarching TOE is much like any bed time story and cannot be proven to not exist. That is why TOE is virtually unfalsifiable and does not meet the a credible standard of falsifiability.
Hence, my question in relation to evolutionists predictions around non coding dna. What supports TOE? If in 50 years time it is demonstrated that all of the genome is functional, as creationists predict, what then? Does that mean TOE is flse?
Not on Darwins death bed! Hence although TOE can make a few scant predictions, it is virtually unfalsifiable and has little predictability.
All faiths can interpret data to suit themselves and come up with their own algorithmic magic to support themselves.
I think to be closed to only one view is problematic.
The thing is it seriously looks like creos are on better tracks than evos.
General creationist predictions on junk dna and so called vestigal organs are being supported more as time goes on. That appears to be a fact. These are stable predictions.
If proven in time, I suggest evolutionists will have lost a huge support for evolutionary theory, despite any handwaving they come up with to explain it.

Maz, you misunderstand what evolution has said about "junk DNA" from the start. Yes, it is easy to debunk something if you use straw man arguments. So far the idea of junk DNA in no way goes against the theory of evolution. Much of the code seemed to be noncoding. Now when we look at it closer it is "differently" coding. Much like vestigial organs, organs may lose their original purpose but that does not mean that they are totally unused. The same occurs with DNA as the species evolves. DNA is not exactly the same as a circuit that can be switched off, so when a gene is "turned off" it very often still has a use. The experts in DNA would not agree with you in any way at all. So if the person who understand DNA the best don't have a problem with non-coding DNA why should someone who does not understand DNA?(That means you)

[anonymous]

MazHere wrote:

<quoted text>
This is what Charles said "People really can say all sort of things, whether true or false.
But we can not rule out the existence of spirits and demons.
They do exist."
Charles is being reasonable here. He suggests one has no evidence to rule them out. Then you call him a liar. He is not a liar. If there is no evidence to the contrary then one is no more delusional believing in a God than evos are for beliving in common ancestors that you have never seen.
By the way....Seeing that you want to talk philosophy instead of science, here is some for you......
Importantly, this has a direct bearing on the question of whether humans and other living creatures have souls. As Kant pointed out over 200 years ago, everything we experience – including all the colors, sensations and objects we perceive – are nothing but representations in our mind. Space and time are simply the mind's tools for putting it all together. Now, to the amusement of idealists, scientists are beginning dimly to recognize that those rules make existence itself possible. Indeed, the experiments above suggest that objects only exist with real properties if they are observed. The results not only defy our classical intuition, but suggest that a part of the mind – the soul – is immortal and exists outside of space and time.
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/biocentri...
You would rather think of yourself as a souless ape. Congratulations!

Charles said "they do exist" without any proof. There's nothing philosophical or reasonable about it. He's parking himself into the middle of a discussion and dictating truth to us. He's a liar.

Now, as concerns souls, what IS a soul and why do Christians insist that humans have them? You're right. I don't believe in them. It's all just another myth. Generally, I write it off as an attempt to exploit people's fear of death but it also is used to rationalize exploitation of the natural world and even the human world among some zealots.

Demonstrate evidence of a soul, or move on.

[anonymous]

Charles Idemi wrote:

<quoted text> Herds?
Without the past, there is no present.
Your ancestors did that as well.
Without your ancestors, there is no you.
That was the civilisation then.

I don't "owe" anything to civilization. As I said, you just don't get it. You never will.

[Charles Idemi]

ChristineM wrote:

<quoted text>
I really though everyone was more sane that wolfie until Charlie Idiot came along
Do you know where wolfie has got to?, I’ve not come across his distinctive drivel for a few weeks?

You are indeed the best of all idiots.

[The Dude]

NikkiShae wrote:

<quoted text>
Ah the power of God... Amazing how he/she/it can miraculously conform to your position without a shred of reliable evidence.

Aye, God is servant to its worshippers.

Apparently.

[anonymous]

Charles Idemi wrote:

<quoted text> I can see, you were there when he was dying.
Interesting?

What does Isaac Newton's death have to do with anything? Why would my witnessing his death have any bearing on the topic?

Isaac Newton was a heretic who did not believe in the holy trinity. Somehow, he made it through life without being exposed but he probably was not happy with the confinement that the politics of his day forced on him. He spent a good part of his latter days researching religion and alchemy. He also is suspected to have had Asperger syndrome and may have developed Mercury poisoning through his alchemical pursuits.

That's something you can look up on Wikipedia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_Newton