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
56,521 - 56,540 of 113,003 Comments Last updated 6 hrs ago

“Exercise Your Brain”

Level 1

Since: Jun 07

Planet Earth

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#60461
Nov 23, 2012
 
Charles Idemi wrote:
<quoted text> Whatever. But you can not rob Peter to Paul.
With baseless assertions.
Hmmm...how do you figure that?

Level 2

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#60462
Nov 23, 2012
 
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Ah shaddap Chuck, ya lying sack of dumb.
Sir Isaac Newton was a Christian, that is all i want to know, you lying sack of dumb.

Level 3

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#60463
Nov 23, 2012
 
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>

Mav is actually on to something when she claims that if she can show that every last bit of DNA has a function that it supports her creationist claims. Of course it would have to be every last bit including ERV's otherwise odds are that evolutionists could have an equal claim to having an interpretation of the DNA data that backs up their belief.
Not necessarily, in my opinion. I think that before we would infer the existence of a god, it would be more reasonable to assume that there is some mechanism for discarding useless portions of the genome that we don't fully understand. Seems more likely than a god. I don't know.

Level 3

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#60464
Nov 23, 2012
 
Charles Idemi wrote:
<quoted text> My assessment of you guys is that, you guys hate the word, opposition.
And that is simply and totally wrong of you guys. We are in democracy.
No, I just think you're dumb. I enjoy intelligent conversation. That's not something you can offer.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#60465
Nov 23, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

NikkiShae wrote:
The one thing I find most amusing is that creationist spend time and energy fighting in these forums. After taking Pascal's wager, it seems they have no further task than to wait for the end to come. Yet they propose the dead horse paradigm endlessly as a feverish attempt to win intellectual supremacy. Not one of them can follow pure science without dropping the magic plug and play deity.
Well I don't know about you ladies, but if you are going to apply Pascal's Wager it is also necessary to decide which god to believe in. We cannot stick our heads in the sand and ignore all of the other deities that have been worshiped in the history of man.

That being said as a guy I find it pretty hard to beat Beer Volcanoes and Stripper Factories. It is the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster for me!

rAmen!!

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#60466
Nov 23, 2012
 

Judged:

1

Charles Idemi wrote:
<quoted text>This is just a lesson for you. God almighty is the owner of all things, including your property and land.
"God is"

"God does"

"God will"

You seem to know a lot about something you can't produce for the teaming masses to observe.

Level 2

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#60467
Nov 23, 2012
 
thewordofme wrote:
<quoted text>
Space detritus.
That is how it will go on and on. Language, grammar can never fill that gap. God created the universe. Period.

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#60468
Nov 23, 2012
 
timn17 wrote:
<quoted text>Dude. Are you trolling? I don't understand. Is the only thing you know, at all, about evolution is that it wrongly predicted non coding dna? Again, one more time, IT DOES NOT MATTER. It literally does not affect the overall theory. At all. How about you trust everyone who is telling you that it doesn't affect the theory, and take on something of actual substance? Offer your assessment of anything other than junk dna.

And no, evolution and creationism are not diametrically opposed. Why would they be? Even the catholic church has claimed that evolution is a tool of your god - because the evidence for it was just too great to deny anymore. Claiming that the TOE is opposed to creationism is like claiming that the theory of gravity is opposed to creationism - and all it shows is just how deeply skewed your thinking is by religion. You can't consider anything that conflicts with your belief that god poofed us into existence.
Like a dog with a bone, don't expect Mav to drop this. Mav lives vicariously through ambitious conclusions.

“Exercise Your Brain”

Level 1

Since: Jun 07

Planet Earth

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#60469
Nov 23, 2012
 
NikkiShae wrote:
<quoted text>
Wow... That's some outburst. So you consider yourself beyond death?
What is ironic to me is that TOE does not in any way deny the presence of a supernatural entity.....science does not say yes or no, it only requires proof so it can't say goddidit until there is empirical evidence. Still, that makes them mad enough to spit.

Go figure.

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#60470
Nov 23, 2012
 
Charles Idemi wrote:
<quoted text>Sir Isaac Newton was a Christian, that is all i want to know, you lying sack of dumb.
Rule number one to being a Christian, accept Christ as savior and follow his word. Give me proof that Isaac Newton did this. Go!

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#60471
Nov 23, 2012
 
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>Well I don't know about you ladies, but if you are going to apply Pascal's Wager it is also necessary to decide which god to believe in. We cannot stick our heads in the sand and ignore all of the other deities that have been worshiped in the history of man.

That being said as a guy I find it pretty hard to beat Beer Volcanoes and Stripper Factories. It is the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster for me!

rAmen!!
Lol.

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#60472
Nov 23, 2012
 
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>Well I don't know about you ladies, but if you are going to apply Pascal's Wager it is also necessary to decide which god to believe in. We cannot stick our heads in the sand and ignore all of the other deities that have been worshiped in the history of man.

That being said as a guy I find it pretty hard to beat Beer Volcanoes and Stripper Factories. It is the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster for me!

rAmen!!
Over 4000 thousand to choose from.

Level 2

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#60473
Nov 23, 2012
 
FREE SERVANT wrote:
<quoted text>Would you agree that the forces that created agate stones also created the earth?
That gaps can never be filled by language, grammar or words. God created the universe. God bless...

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#60474
Nov 23, 2012
 
Charles Idemi wrote:
<quoted text>That is how it will go on and on. Language, grammar can never fill that gap. God created the universe. Period.
Ok. Now prove it.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#60475
Nov 23, 2012
 
timn17 wrote:
<quoted text>Not necessarily, in my opinion. I think that before we would infer the existence of a god, it would be more reasonable to assume that there is some mechanism for discarding useless portions of the genome that we don't fully understand. Seems more likely than a god. I don't know.
I am not saying I would believe her. I am merely saying that if she could come up with a hypothesis that described why all of the DNA is ones body had to have a purpose then she could use it as evidence to support here hypothesis. Scientific evidence is evidence that supports a theory or hypothesis. It would be a first for the creationists if they could write up a paper that proposed this and, and this is a big IF, if all of the DNA in the genome actually had a function. That includes ERV's.

I don't think that is going to be the case.
ARGUING with IDIOTS

Chico, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#60476
Nov 23, 2012
 
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>Of course I can produce the massive evidence. The problem is that you don't even know what constitutes scientific evidence.

An educated creationist will at least admit that there is massive evidence that supports evolution. They stubbornly disagree with the interpretation of that evidence and can offer none that support their side. So what do you call someone who has no evidence to support their beliefs, and knows that the other side has all of the evidence?

You call that person a creationist.

What do you call someone who denies that evolution has massive evidence. What else can you call someone who is even dumber than a creationist, you call that person a creatard.
Thanks for the validation above.

Again you state a massive amount of evidence exist, yet you provided none. You then launch into a rant against creationist. LOL!

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#60477
Nov 23, 2012
 
NikkiShae wrote:
<quoted text>
Over 4000 thousand to choose from.
And counting.
ARGUING with IDIOTS

Chico, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#60478
Nov 23, 2012
 
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>Because you probably do not know what scientific evidence is. I have listed it before, creatards tend to ignore it.

So first, before I produce any evidence let's have a discussion on what constitutes scientific evidence.

Scientific evidence has to be evidence that everyone agrees with. And it must either support or oppose a theory or hypothesis. If it does not do either one of those it is merely noise.

So how do you support a theory or hypothesis. Mav is actually on to something when she claims that if she can show that every last bit of DNA has a function that it supports her creationist claims. Of course it would have to be every last bit including ERV's otherwise odds are that evolutionists could have an equal claim to having an interpretation of the DNA data that backs up their belief.

Theories and hypotheses make models of the real world that support their claims. For example if the theory of evolution is true the fossil record should never have a Cambrian bunny rabbit, or for that matter the 215 million year old whale that Maz claimed was found. The fossil record supports the evolutionary record. Therefore it is evidence for evolution. We have tons of fossils in museums and there are mountains of fossils in nature. All of which support the evolutionary model. Those same fossils do not support the creationist model so they cannot be used as evidence for creation. Creationists won't even make a model that describes how the fossils were laid down. They did in the past by trying to claim that Noah's flood laid them down but that is so thoroughly debunked that it is laughable to even try to use it these days.d

So there, a rather long post that describes scientific evidence. Shows how it is used. Gives an example of actual evidence that can be used by evolution and not by creation. Any questions?
So you are restricting the evidence in this debate to only "scientific" evidence?

Level 2

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#60479
Nov 23, 2012
 
NikkiShae wrote:
<quoted text>
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?
That same question is met for you, though in the other way.

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Marrickville, Australia

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#60480
Nov 23, 2012
 
timn17 wrote:
<quoted text>Here's one specific piece of evidence - chromosome 2 in humans. All chromosomes have telomeres and centromeres ( one telomere on each end and one centromere in the middle). However, humans have one chromosome (2) that has 4 telomeres and 2 centromeres. In the middle, there are two telomeres connected end to end where the centromere would usually be. Each end has it's own telomere, and then on either side, in between both sets of telomeres, there is a centromere. Based on this strange configuration, it seems that we have a fused chromosome. We have 23 chromosomes. All members of homindae except us have 24. So, at some point after we diverged, 2 of our chromosomes fused, which is why we have one less than the rest of our family.
I recommend you do some light reading on the subject, both because it's hard to grasp what I just told you based on my short description, and because you are incredibly stupid.
Oh you snobb after all the woffle and pointless banter don't you tell me to go do some reading. You still are gobsmacked from your junk dna fiasco.

So far you have provided nothing to choose from, In case you do not realize all your choices relate to the same event. Supplying some research link would have been preferable to your repeating what I already know evos assume.

OK, here is the latest news. The so called human ch2 fusion site being the same as chimp 2a and 2b is rubbish. A secnond centromere remnant is based on algorithmic magic and nothing else. That's it in a nut shell.

So I suppose if you don't have to provide links then neither do I.
But I'll supply some. Here is a creo take and refute to the human ch2 conundrum.

Other problems with the fusion theory include the fact that standard cytogenetic techniques, such as C-banding, have detected significantly less heterochromatic centromeric DNA on the long arm of human chromosome 2 than predicted by the fusion model.

Evolutionists claim this is because the “bulk of the centromeric repetitive DNA has been lost”.13 Conversely, it is more likely that the so-called cryptic centromeric DNA never existed.

http://creation.com/chromosome-2-fusion-1

This below is not from a creationist site.

Human telomeres, with the exception of those in human sperm, are much shorter than telomeres in non-human primates.

http://carta.anthropogeny.org/moca/topics/tel...

So, unless you are suggesting that human ch2 and chimp 2a and 2b are sex genes then the human telomeres for a start are different at the ends then any non human primate. If a Robertson translocation occured in mankind at all it does not appear to be the result of the fusion of 2 ape genes.

Then there is this also not from a creationist site.
Such sequences are also present In the human centromere (the middle of the chromosome), but at one point the order changes abruptly to 5'-CCCTAA-3', the reverse complement of the standard pattern, as predicted by a telomere to telomere fusion of ancestral ape-like chromosomes.

http://www.mun.ca/biology/scarr/Human_Ape_chr...

So there are many inserted genes, sequences that run counter to predicted in the fusion model and telomeres in mankind that are shorter than any other non human ape.

Hence in actual fact the story of human chromosome 2 being the result of an end to end fusion of 2 ape genes is highly unlikely.
We can discuss the improbability of such a translocation that may result in genetic sterility and speciation and how that became fixed in the population another time.

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

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

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.

•••
•••