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.

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?
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#60397 Nov 23, 2012
MazHere wrote:
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!
Um, no it ain't. The Devonian did not exist. You're a YEC, remember? You can't use science you reject for theological reasons to claim that science you reject for theological reasons falsifies science you reject for theological reasons. But thanks once again for another wonderful demonstration of your dishonesty.

Level 3

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#60398 Nov 23, 2012
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
If you are refering to me, it is you that have proven to be dim becuase you have not addressed me with substantive research to refute me. Nor have you explained how anything I assert is not as equally a good interpretation of the data as any these researchers have come up with.
All your woffle around junk dna, vestigial organs; Over 4 billion years of accumulative beneficial mutation that are overwhelmingly negative and restrictive which is great evidence for creation dismissed by the mere wave of the hand and any old ridiculous scenarion any delusional mind can come up with will do!
You can do no more than ridicule me and that makes me extremely happy because you have provided evidence of your own ignorance.
What is there to refute? All you do is jabber on about junk dna and vestigal organs. Those issues are ancillary to overall evolutionary theory. They do not "prove it wrong." As I said, the issue is settled. Pointing out that there is debate about the finer points of evolutionary mechanisms does not prove your point, it only shows that the TOE is a robust theory that can stand up to critical analysis. It's good that it is constantly being updated and revised. That's what science is - a process of updating our explanations of our observations. It will never "stop." Creationists already have their conclusion, and refuse to change their position no matter the evidence. It is a stagnant worldview, perpetually stuck in the past.

As I said, I'm not trying to "debate" you. I won't lower myself to that. It would be like arguing the "stork theory" of reproduction with a child. A waste of time, and laughably stupid. There is no debate, only the collective death rattle of creationists too terrified to look the evidence in the eye.

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Everton, Australia

#60399 Nov 23, 2012
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
... and Mohamed said that people would hate the Muslims. So does that mean their religion is real too?
I said it does not mean anything in case you had not picked that simple point up.

So actually your reply means you have not got a clue about the science you are trying to defend and have given up and resorted to philosophical posturing to evade any sniff of science.

That's great to see, because it is usually evos quacking on about creos not proving research support for their view. eg junk dna and evos special woffle about backbones and changing nature of evolutionary definitions to suit what you lot actually find. remember?
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#60400 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.
And may God have mercy on you for constantly violating the 9th Commandment.

Who are you again?(shrug)
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#60401 Nov 23, 2012
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
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!!!!!!
Already addressed. Repeating your lies doesn't make them anything other than lies. Remember, God is watching...
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#60402 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!
Prove to us that dolphins don't have it. You can start by scientifically demonstrating the existence of a "soul".
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#60403 Nov 23, 2012
MazHere wrote:
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.
Sorry, but invoking such timescales does nothing but demonstrate you're a dishonest hypocrite. Try again.
MazHere wrote:
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.
Again, already addressed. And again, mere negative arguments against evolution do not automatically constitute as positive evidence FOR creationism. Try again.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#60404 Nov 23, 2012
Falsifications of evolution were already provided. Try again.

Level 3

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#60405 Nov 23, 2012
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
So what? Do you know how hilarious it is for you to use evolutionary research to "prove" that evolutionary research is wrong? That doesn't make a bit of sense. What's wrong with the TOE updating it's interpretation of the data? That's a good thing. It would be alarming if the scientists refused to adapt the theory to new data.

And why do you keep going on about junk dna? It does not change a thing. Even if every single bit of dna codes for something, that would not "prove" creationism. It baffles me that you think that you can use evolutionary research to prove evolutionary research wrong. Poking a hole in a scientific theory does not prove your theory. Your so called theory must stand on it's own merits, not on the "faults" of another theory. It would be like if I claimed the big bang theory was true because the biblical account of creation is wrong. That wouldn't make sense. Make your own argument for creation.

"Your evidence" that 80 percent of dna codes for something doesn't "prove" creationism. You can't appropriate research of one scientific field to prove that scientific field wrong. Again, that makes no sense. And if we were designed, wouldn't *all* of our dna be functional? Why would any of it be non coding? Why would a god just throw random stuff in there for no reason? Is he trying to confuse us?

Now, it's your turn to find something to spam at me 20 times in a row.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#60406 Nov 23, 2012
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
I said it does not mean anything in case you had not picked that simple point up.
So actually your reply means you have not got a clue about the science you are trying to defend and have given up and resorted to philosophical posturing to evade any sniff of science.
That's great to see, because it is usually evos quacking on about creos not proving research support for their view. eg junk dna and evos special woffle about backbones and changing nature of evolutionary definitions to suit what you lot actually find. remember?
Irony meter go boom. Try again.

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Everton, Australia

#60407 Nov 23, 2012
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
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 convincing! Not!
Come on you lot of slackers. You keep posting challenges. Where are you Dude? Have you given up on ervs so quickly?

You lot are all over the place like mad people.

You can't support toe via a prediction on non coding dna. You can't refute that current research into non coding dna favours a creationist paradigm, you have bird footprints being stuck on ficticious theropods and descendants that predate their ancestors and some joker wanting to take me on over ervs, and none of you can do anything more than prattle on and have provided nothing of substance. None of you can come up with the readies.

You lot can bring nothing to conclusion. You lot just skip around like Alice in Wonderland hoping to score a point on some irrelevant philosophy, Then you rely on invasion to justify your existence on this forum.

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Everton, Australia

#60408 Nov 23, 2012
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Irony meter go boom. Try again.
Try providing links to research instead of postulating yourself to be a baboon.

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
2015: "Make a Story/ 6 Words Only: 7 min Grace Nerissa 229
A To Z Of Movies (Sep '12) 9 min Go Blue Forever 4,888
Word association (Jun '07) 10 min -CatCiao- 2,884
Change 1 letter game! (Nov '11) 14 min Hoosier Hillbilly 4,342
News Study: Beards are filled with poop and 'as dirt... 23 min DILF 20
Word Association 2 (Sep '13) 25 min DILF 10,957
BAN(N) the P0STER Above you !!! (Feb '14) 25 min Crazy Beautiful 4,369
El's Kitchen (Feb '09) 48 min Crystal in Grey 40,316
What song are you listening to right now? (Apr '08) 1 hr KIMberly504 161,896
More from around the web