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 of111,533
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:

Level 3

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

Marrickville, Australia

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

Marrickville, Australia

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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.

Level 3

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#60409
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?
"Creos" haven't "proven" anything with junk dna. It was evolutionary scientists who came out and said that they were mistaken about the total amount of junk dna, because they aren't idiots and they adjust their theories to fit the data, not the other way around - like "creos" do. You can't use research from the field of evolution to prove that the TOE is wrong. That makes no sense. If you disbelieve the TOE, you can't use *any* data that is arrived at using evolutionary paradigms. Our knowledge of dna is in part made possible by our knowledge of evolution.

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#60410
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?
You read more into what people post too? You and Redneck should have an interpreted party. Who said I was defending anything? Of course the irony is that you just admitted to attacking science.

You just continually spout nonsense that's been debunked so many times for so long it's not worthy of anything more than mockery, so I get a good laugh at your "scientific" posts and just show you how idiotic your religious nonsense sounds. You don't like that last part, because you know it's idiotic, you use your religion to make yourself feel like you somehow know more than you do know, when in reality your religion makes you know less than a 10 year old child.

Level 3

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#60411
Nov 23, 2012
 
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
I have a question for you. Do you think that the entire TOE is based solely on junk dna? Do you think that the theory fell apart once they found that we have more coding dna than previously assumed? Seriously. You don't make sense. Junk dna was more or less an argument against design, not necessarily an argument for evolution. Evolution has already been proven, it does not need "junk dna" to back it up.

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Marrickville, Australia

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#60412
Nov 23, 2012
 
timn17 wrote:
<quoted text>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.
You keep quoting my post and yet have nothing to add to refute it.

So are you making a prediction that this mere 20% of non coding dna will remain non functional are you?

Are you also suggesting that all the past decade of woffle around 98% of dna being junk is subsequently refuted and falsified? If so what makes you think any flavour of the month has any merit behind it?

God is not trying to confuse you evos. You evos appear to be doing a good job of that for yourselves.

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Marrickville, Australia

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#60413
Nov 23, 2012
 
timn17 wrote:
<quoted text>"Creos" haven't "proven" anything with junk dna. It was evolutionary scientists who came out and said that they were mistaken about the total amount of junk dna, because they aren't idiots and they adjust their theories to fit the data, not the other way around - like "creos" do. You can't use research from the field of evolution to prove that the TOE is wrong. That makes no sense. If you disbelieve the TOE, you can't use *any* data that is arrived at using evolutionary paradigms. Our knowledge of dna is in part made possible by our knowledge of evolution.
The simple truth is that creationists can make a prediction on non coding dna. You evos cannot. Therefore in evo terms junk dna says nothing to inform support for TOE.

The way you have sprooked about the last 20% beggs the question, if the last 20% is also found to have some function in time does that mean I win and you loose? Does it?

If this eventuates you evos will run and hide and come up with God only knows what dribble.

Hence anything you present as support for evolution may only be flavour of the month to be refuted at any time.

On the point of non coding dna creos have made a prediction. They have been suject to the abuse of evos stuffing crap doen their throats eg 98% junk. Creos have seen the 98% dwindle down to 20%. They have seen die hard evos clutch at straws like drowning rats.

You keep clutching to your 20% lovey, because your straw will soon break.

Here I have been saving this for you to put your foot in your mouth. Thankfully you have done so.

And what’s in the remaining 20 percent? Possibly not junk either, according to Ewan Birney, the project’s Lead Analysis Coordinator and self-described “cat-herder-in-chief”. He explains that ENCODE only (!) looked at 147 types of cells, and the human body has a few thousand. A given part of the genome might control a gene in one cell type, but not others. If every cell is included, functions may emerge for the phantom proportion.“It’s likely that 80 percent will go to 100 percent,” says Birney.“We don’t really have any large chunks of redundant DNA. This metaphor of junk isn’t that useful.”

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/notrocketsc...

So the question is not why did God put junk dna in the genome to confuse evolutionists. That is a fabrication of your desperate and delusional mind. The question is why do evolutionists suffer foot in mouth disease so consistently?

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Marrickville, Australia

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#60414
Nov 23, 2012
 
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
You read more into what people post too? You and Redneck should have an interpreted party. Who said I was defending anything? Of course the irony is that you just admitted to attacking science.
You just continually spout nonsense that's been debunked so many times for so long it's not worthy of anything more than mockery, so I get a good laugh at your "scientific" posts and just show you how idiotic your religious nonsense sounds. You don't like that last part, because you know it's idiotic, you use your religion to make yourself feel like you somehow know more than you do know, when in reality your religion makes you know less than a 10 year old child.
You may laugh as hard as you like. As far as the thread topic is concerned you and your cohorts have fallen flat on their faces. You have nothing to say of substance and have not posted a link to research to speak of. That is the hallmark of a pretender that can easily ridicule others but in the end is an empty vessel.

I have presented evidence of evolutionary researchers that are also expecting 100% of the genome to be functional.

Creationists will soon have this long awaited prediction fulfilled while evos stand their with their mouth agape saying "quack quack" whist holding a hand full of twoddle.

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Marrickville, Australia

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#60415
Nov 23, 2012
 
The Dude wrote:
Falsifications of evolution were already provided. Try again.
Good then I do not have to say anything more!

TOE is falsified. I agree. Is that what has been the bee in your bonnet all along?

You can also suck up the fact that some evo researchers are now suggesting that it is very likely that 100% of the genome is functional. Yippeeeee!!!!

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Marrickville, Australia

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#60416
Nov 23, 2012
 
PROFESSOR X wrote:
Atheistic Scientists were Humiliated As Their Junk DNA Evolution Paradigm recently Collapsed
Anti-theistic scientists, Ken Miller, Ayala, Dawkins, Collins, Falk and other junk DNA proponents made failed observations about DNA, such that their Darwinian evolution paradigm has collapsed. Not that long ago, junk DNA was being defended as an important element of the Darwinian evolution paradigm ... The question now seems to be whether Ayala, Dawkins, Collins, Falk and other junk DNA proponents will continue to defend junk DNA, whatever they call it?- Rob Crowther,PhD
Evolutionary Biologist Richard Sternberg discusses modern genomics and the collapse of evolutionists junk DNA theory.
http://www.cross.tv/66770
Doubt Atheism & Question Darwinism
http://www.evolutionfacts.blogspot.com
.
So in summation to you Proffessor where ever you are....

It appears that it takes much more than a falsification of a previous evolutionary assumption or prediction to humiliate evolutionists and their researchers.

This is because evolutionists are used to having their theories falsified and refuted and this leads to a new flavour of the month to shove at creos until it can be refuted or totally falsified.

Evos have spent over a decade woffling on about junk dna and shoving their false and invalid research down creationists throats.

Now it appears that some well credentialled evolutionary researchers are finally realizing that it is very likely that 100% of the genome is functional. Creationists have been validated but we will never see an evotard admit to it.

This data and hypothesis of course supports a creationist prediction and paradigm, although ours may differ.

Change and falsifications of previous assertions means nothing to evolutionists because TOE never was and still isn't based on empirical evidence per se. Evos just make it up as they go along as one can see with your example in junk dna that never was.

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#60417
Nov 23, 2012
 
Charles Idemi wrote:
<quoted text>What brought about the atoms?
The cycle goes and on and on.
Language or grammar can never fill that gap or vacuum ...
Perhaps you should invest in continued learning. This really isn't the place to learn practical physics.

A question. Were you this difficult when people were filling your head with religion?

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#60418
Nov 23, 2012
 
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>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.

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.

http://wallacegsmith.wordpress.com/2010/10/22...

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.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/09/...

You see once again you use illogical assumptions and unsubstantiated views to support your views on big bang and earth formation. Assumption is all there is and appears to be used in place of observed science.

There is more confusion, contradiction and competing theories on earth formation then there ever was.

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.

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! 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.
Very good. You have described the universe as I understand it. Would it make you happy if I supported the popular pet name "God"?

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#60419
Nov 23, 2012
 
Mav, why this fascination with "junk DNA"? That is not even a proper scientific term for it.

Once again, it is a term very similar to "UFO". There is not one "UFO" yet that has been shown to be a "flying saucer" all it is is a catch all term for flying objects that have not been identified yet.

"Junk DNA" is on the same order. It is DNA that we have not identified to what it actually does. At first it looked as if it did nothing. This is not a problem for the theory of evolution. Now it looks like it does next to nothing and this is still not a problem for evolution. In fact like many organs which lose almost all function or whose function change as the species evolves, so should some DNA change in its usage. The two are tied together.

See if you can find an actual article that states that Junk DNA poses any problem for evolution in any way at all.

And please, your 250 million year old whale story? Don't you even check your sources ever? I thought better of you. It looks more and more like you are just another lying creatard for Jebus.

Level 3

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#60420
Nov 23, 2012
 
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
You keep quoting my post and yet have nothing to add to refute it.
So are you making a prediction that this mere 20% of non coding dna will remain non functional are you?
Are you also suggesting that all the past decade of woffle around 98% of dna being junk is subsequently refuted and falsified? If so what makes you think any flavour of the month has any merit behind it?
God is not trying to confuse you evos. You evos appear to be doing a good job of that for yourselves.
You are hopeless. As I said, debating evolution with a creationist is like debating the stork theory of reproduction with a small child. Pointless.

But again, because you are getting really annoying with all this junk dna stuff -*it does not matter.* The fact that scientists were wrong about non coding dna does not in any way invalidate the larger theory. There are still many lines of evidence that support evolution. Also, it does not matter how much dna is coding or non coding. Even if 100% of it was, that would not "prove" creationism. Anyways, 100% of it isn't - and why would that be the case if we were designed? Wouldn't a perfect creator give us perfect dna?

You can't appropriate one bit of research from evolutionary theory that "supports" creationism while simultaneously claiming that the paradigm which makes such research possible is wrong. How do you not understand that? You are using evolutionary research to claim that evolution is wrong. That's stupid.

And since you didn't understand last time - you aren't supporting creationism by pointing out "holes" in evolutionary theory. A theory must stand on it's own merits - not on the so called faults of another theory.

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Marrickville, Australia

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#60421
Nov 23, 2012
 
NikkiShae wrote:
<quoted text>
Very good. You have described the universe as I understand it. Would it make you happy if I supported the popular pet name "God"?
You are free to call the 'cause' whatever you wish, be it gaia, God. Your condescention is noted as being a cheap reply on being absolutley gob smacked on the topic at hand.

I am not here to get you to make me happy. That is quite illogical and irrelevant.

However seeing as evos have lost any hope of shoving that last 20% of very likely non existent junk dna, down my throat, why not defer to locking horns on the creation of the universe.

What did you think of the research in relation to an earth centred universe further supported by challenges to Big Bang itself. eg Physics breaks down at the moment of creation, intergalactic shadows missing?

http://wallacegsmith.wordpress.com/2010/10/22...

You can waste your time here philosophising. I prefer to look to science and observation. Observation also suggests earth is the centre of the universe and we are the only intelligent life the government has admitted to, with only algorithmic magic based on problematic big bang and speculation to suggest otherwise.

The theory I prefer does not need the mystery of dark energy. It doesn't need God either, but it does challege the Copernican principle if ever validated.

Level 3

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#60422
Nov 23, 2012
 
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
The simple truth is that creationists can make a prediction on non coding dna. You evos cannot. Therefore in evo terms junk dna says nothing to inform support for TOE.
The way you have sprooked about the last 20% beggs the question, if the last 20% is also found to have some function in time does that mean I win and you loose? Does it?
If this eventuates you evos will run and hide and come up with God only knows what dribble.
Hence anything you present as support for evolution may only be flavour of the month to be refuted at any time.
On the point of non coding dna creos have made a prediction. They have been suject to the abuse of evos stuffing crap doen their throats eg 98% junk. Creos have seen the 98% dwindle down to 20%. They have seen die hard evos clutch at straws like drowning rats.
You keep clutching to your 20% lovey, because your straw will soon break.
Here I have been saving this for you to put your foot in your mouth. Thankfully you have done so.
And what’s in the remaining 20 percent? Possibly not junk either, according to Ewan Birney, the project’s Lead Analysis Coordinator and self-described “cat-herder-in-chief”. He explains that ENCODE only (!) looked at 147 types of cells, and the human body has a few thousand. A given part of the genome might control a gene in one cell type, but not others. If every cell is included, functions may emerge for the phantom proportion.“It’s likely that 80 percent will go to 100 percent,” says Birney.“We don’t really have any large chunks of redundant DNA. This metaphor of junk isn’t that useful.”
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/notrocketsc...
So the question is not why did God put junk dna in the genome to confuse evolutionists. That is a fabrication of your desperate and delusional mind. The question is why do evolutionists suffer foot in mouth disease so consistently?
You are astoundingly stupid. I, and not one serious scientist, thinks that to "prove" evolution, we must prove that some of our dna is non coding. IT DOES NOT AFFECT THE OVERALL THEORY. It is a footnote. Why don't you understand that? Dna is not the be all, end all of the TOE. There are many other lines of evidence that support it.

And no, you wouldn't "win" if all dna were coding (I don't know why you are framing this as a win and lose thing. I am not competing to "beat" your dumbass). Explain why that would prove creationism. It would "prove" that our understanding of dna was mistaken, that's it. You can't infer a deity out of thin air because an inconsequential prediction of the TOE was mistaken. Again, you cannot "prove" your case by poking holes in another theory. If you want your theory to be taken seriously, you must make it stand on it's own. Otherwise, I could claim that the big bang theory is right because the biblical creation account is wrong.

Level 3

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#60423
Nov 23, 2012
 
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
You may laugh as hard as you like. As far as the thread topic is concerned you and your cohorts have fallen flat on their faces. You have nothing to say of substance and have not posted a link to research to speak of. That is the hallmark of a pretender that can easily ridicule others but in the end is an empty vessel.
I have presented evidence of evolutionary researchers that are also expecting 100% of the genome to be functional.
Creationists will soon have this long awaited prediction fulfilled while evos stand their with their mouth agape saying "quack quack" whist holding a hand full of twoddle.
For creation to be taken seriously, it's proponents must make their own theory stand on it's own merits. They cannot appropriate and cherry pick scientific research to suit their needs while simultaneously disregarding everything that would cast doubt on their premise. Again, why don't you understand this?

How do you explain fossils? How do you explain embyology? How do you explain convergent evolution? How do you explain the fact that we share a large percentage of our dna with our primate cousins, and a certain percentage with every animal on earth? How do you explain the physical similarity of closely related animals? How do you explain the similarities in brain structure? How do you explain "bad" design decisions in creatures that you claim to be divinely designed?

An example of a bad design decision - the giraffe's neck. It's laryngeal nerve starts at the head, goes all the way down the neck, and then wraps back around and up back to the head. This makes no sense from a design perspective. Why not just run the nerve straight across, instead of taking that long detour in the neck? However, it makes perfect sense considered from an evolutionary perspective. Originally, fish didn't have necks, so the nerve made it's little u turn in a relatively short space. But as the giraffe's neck grew longer and longer, it grew with the neck - making for the strange design.

Now, your turn - spam some more stuff about non coding dna that you don't even understand.(reading test, if you actually read this far in my post before spamming back at me, start your post with the number 22).

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Marrickville, Australia

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#60424
Nov 23, 2012
 
Subduction Zone wrote:
Mav, why this fascination with "junk DNA"? That is not even a proper scientific term for it.
Once again, it is a term very similar to "UFO". There is not one "UFO" yet that has been shown to be a "flying saucer" all it is is a catch all term for flying objects that have not been identified yet.
"Junk DNA" is on the same order. It is DNA that we have not identified to what it actually does. At first it looked as if it did nothing. This is not a problem for the theory of evolution. Now it looks like it does next to nothing and this is still not a problem for evolution. In fact like many organs which lose almost all function or whose function change as the species evolves, so should some DNA change in its usage. The two are tied together.
See if you can find an actual article that states that Junk DNA poses any problem for evolution in any way at all.
And please, your 250 million year old whale story? Don't you even check your sources ever? I thought better of you. It looks more and more like you are just another lying creatard for Jebus.
OMG and you are one of the leading posters. Heaven help you evos!

I do not have to present anything to support my view further pal. I have stated my case.

I have checked my sources and the whale fossil evidence is the only creo site I have used, so suck it up. Even it is no worse that some of the rubbish your researchers come up with and call evidence. Non coding dna is a case in point. So what are these bright ones going to call supposed non coding dna now? Woopsie, I suppose.

Even your evo researchers cannot explain these whale bones and the carbon dating ended up being inconsistent, so dah! UFO examples dah!

Do you think that repeating the obvious is some silly way to delude yourself into think you have something to say.

Of course 'now it looks like some does next to nothing' is a fling off pal. The man said likely 100% functional, is functional what you mean by does next to nothing? Functional in any way concurs with a creationist paradigm. You lot are the ones that like to invent woffle about left overs, ad nauseum.

If you lot can come up with contradictory findings it can also mean that none of these researchers actually know what they are looking at or doing.

The point being that I can make a prediction on non coding dna and it is being supported even by biased and convoluted evolutionary research, and I love it.

TOE is the only supposed science that can convolute a falsification into a good thing and call it progress instead. You evos should be laughed out of the scientific community and placed in the philosophy streams.

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 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.

135 Users are viewing the Weird Forum right now

Search the Weird Forum:
Topic Updated Last By Comments
The Letter "S" (Nov '08) 3 min Petal Power 9,403
I Haven't Had____? In ages (Sep '12) 5 min Petal Power 941
Make A Sentance out of a 5 letter word. (Nov '09) 8 min Petal Power 28,549
What song are you listening to right now? (Apr '08) 9 min Roy 140,257
True False Game (Jun '11) 11 min Petal Power 9,511
In honor of Petal Power 13 min Petal Power 51
Change-one-of-six-letters (Dec '12) 15 min _Zoey_ 2,950
•••
•••
Enter and win $5000
•••
•••