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 2,825)

Showing posts 56,481 - 56,500 of106,037
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:

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.

“Waytogo”

Since: Oct 09

Location hidden

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

Franklin, PA

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

Birkenhead, UK

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

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

Well done.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

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

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#60369
Nov 23, 2012
 
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
Religion is dying because most religions do not adhere to the teachings in their spiritual texts. You've got Catholics bowing down to idols, Islamic extremists and uncivilized faiths populating like rabbits, and other that don't believe in a biblical God but uphold some unsubstantiated dribble of their own.
Look at this article. I have sourced a refute for you lot seeing as none of you are able to supply anything of substance for yourselves.
http://thenaturalhistorian.com/2012/11/03/the...
I refute you by claiming that evidence of people leaving religion does not inform the creation/evolution debate at all. You are evading strong and robust discussions I speak to in an attempt to evade the thread topic. On a properly moderated forum your posts would likely have been deleted.
This boof in the refute to my assertion above is trying to refute accumulating evidence that researchers and scientists are flocking to the various forms of creationism in droves.
Note this fool basing his entire refute on the basis of amounts of published articles, as if the publication watch dogs allow creationist research past their gates. It is only puiblished when disgiused as based on evo paradigms.
Indeed I assert that researchers are flocking to creationist models in droves. John Sanford is just one of them.
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.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#60370
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.
We can not only ridicule you but also point out your dishonesty and where your assertions go wrong. That's including claiming negative arguments as "positive evidence". And what the heck do you mean 4 billion years anyway?!? There's no such thing as 4 billion years!

Oh wait - you're a hypocrite.(shrug)

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Marrickville, Australia

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#60371
Nov 23, 2012
 
anonymous wrote:
<quoted text>
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 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.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#60372
Nov 23, 2012
 
MazHere wrote:
<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?
Yup. Which is why you still haven't been able to address the logical consequences of Sanford's arguments. And you STILL focus on anti-evolution apologetics while ignoring your own internal inconsistencies.
FREE SERVANT

Bellevue, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#60373
Nov 23, 2012
 
anonymous wrote:
<quoted text>
OK, that isn't too clear on any level. Are you suggesting that humanity is 200 to 400 million years old? What was cut in half? Stones or Indians? Either way, what is implied by cutting things in half? Are you implying that God "knew" about Indians but was not directly involved in their creation? WTF?
Let me clarify! Agate stones are cut and polished. The KY agates that have vivid mineral colors sometimes are found to have distinct pictures in them. Examples have been found with birds and other nature scenes as well as humans that are clearly Indians.
Portal

Chicago, IL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#60374
Nov 23, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Gets Pkr wrote:
<quoted text>
And the socialist gospel proclaims that once upon a time a lightning bolt struck a possible ammoniated methane pool, generated stray amino acids which possibly hooked up in a manner which allowed it feed, digest and reproduce itself. Sorry progressive genius, I just can't buy swamp land in southern Arizona, but you obviously have that "kind of blind faith" for such an investment.
No,Big G open your gray matter. Humans make up theories to mislead and confuse the clueless. Creationism and evolution are just two examples.......there is another option but, apparently being human has a mind block thrown up....for most humans. The others that can think and reason....don't care for the "Norm" in the theory misinformation data. The cosmos has all the answers.....religion is a block, evolution are a block...now, my position should be clear Big G. Its pointless, the human being will be extinct before they understand.
FREE SERVANT

Bellevue, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#60375
Nov 23, 2012
 
ToManyLaws wrote:
<quoted text>
I knew what you meant. I have read the total LIE BS story also. That whole deal has been disproven as a fake. But you do liek to believe in made up BS dont you.
Please stop supporting lies and get with the real world! This is not fake, I have seen them.
anonymous

Franklin, PA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#60376
Nov 23, 2012
 
FREE SERVANT wrote:
<quoted text>Let me clarify! Agate stones are cut and polished. The KY agates that have vivid mineral colors sometimes are found to have distinct pictures in them. Examples have been found with birds and other nature scenes as well as humans that are clearly Indians.
...and the point is?

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Marrickville, Australia

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

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

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

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 56,481 - 56,500 of106,037
|
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.

•••
•••
•••
•••