Evolution vs. Creation

Full story: Best of New Orleans

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

Comments (Page 2,822)

Showing posts 56,421 - 56,440 of111,533
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Marrickville, Australia

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#60343
Nov 23, 2012
 
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
And yet if that were true you should have no trouble addressing our posts in a rational coherent manner. Is that what happens? Nope. You just shout "WOFFLE!" then move the goalposts onto some other subject and hope than no-one would notice. In the meantime evolution was demonstrated at least as far back as February, but more than likely it was even way before then.
So far not one of you has even made an attempt on it yet. Then once you get past that we can talk ERV's. And for once maybe just ONE of you could explain exactly what the "scientific theory" of creationism is.
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 You can throw out all biology books older than 10 years as they are outdated.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.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#60344
Nov 23, 2012
 
MazHere wrote:
SubdutionZone is a champ due to amounts of post and nothing to do with content. He has absolutely no idea except to mimick others words he likely cannot comprehend himself.
Here is a message to Subduction Zone.....
The work on epitasis I have presented actually supports other research on genetic entropy by John C Sanford.
Actually Sanford is a reality-denying Young Earther. His apologetics destroys all life. His problem is that reality contradicts his assertions, and he deliberately ignores taking natural selection into account when making his proclamations. If his BS was right he should have no problem calculating the date that genetic entropy reaches critical mass leading to the declination of the biological population. His problem is that the populations of many species (including humans) are actually increasing in population and genetic diversity. Also as a Genesis and "Flood" proponent his claims are in DIRECT CONTRADICTION of those scenarios.
MazHere wrote:
Of course evos, that have some clue, will point to a swathe of blather that refutes Sanford. Of course evos use their own assumption as a refute and tis is and always has been circular. This new research actually refutes the refute to Sanfords work and turns previous refutes into mindless blather.
Except it's already been addressed, as has your dishonesty in quotemining other people's work. You can't fling poo at a science then at the same time claim that very same science supports you. So to translate what you just said you really mean you can offer no counter to our rebuttals and will engage in Gish Gallop.
MazHere wrote:
My prediction is that I will get more woffle and generalizations with not a shred of research in support and no articulated reply, meaning my points are made and sustained.
... actually meaning you will ignore rebuttals completely without addressing them.

This thread has been going over a year and you're still doing that.

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Marrickville, Australia

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#60346
Nov 23, 2012
 
BTW, ervs are ghosts that you are chasing in supposed junk dna.

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.

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.

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Marrickville, Australia

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#60347
Nov 23, 2012
 
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually Sanford is a reality-denying Young Earther. His apologetics destroys all life. His problem is that reality contradicts his assertions, and he deliberately ignores taking natural selection into account when making his proclamations. If his BS was right he should have no problem calculating the date that genetic entropy reaches critical mass leading to the declination of the biological population. His problem is that the populations of many species (including humans) are actually increasing in population and genetic diversity. Also as a Genesis and "Flood" proponent his claims are in DIRECT CONTRADICTION of those scenarios.
<quoted text>
Except it's already been addressed, as has your dishonesty in quotemining other people's work. You can't fling poo at a science then at the same time claim that very same science supports you. So to translate what you just said you really mean you can offer no counter to our rebuttals and will engage in Gish Gallop.
<quoted text>
... actually meaning you will ignore rebuttals completely without addressing them.
This thread has been going over a year and you're still doing that.
You absolutely have no idea what supporting your view looks like, do you?

I say the research supports Sanford and have explained why.

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.

.
FREE SERVANT

Bellevue, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

Marrickville, Australia

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

Marrickville, Australia

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

Marrickville, Australia

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

Marrickville, Australia

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 56,421 - 56,440 of111,533
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" 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.

•••
•••
Enter and win $5000
•••
•••