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 2,829)

Showing posts 56,561 - 56,580 of106,238
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:

Level 3

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#60439
Nov 23, 2012
 
Maz, I'm gonna put this in a separate post so that maybe you read it this time. You must make creationism stand on it's own as a theory. You can't find "proof" for it by poking holes on scientific theory. You have to find your own proof. Even if the TOE was found to be entirely wrong, which will not happen, that would not prove creationism. Do you understand that? The failure of a scientific theory is not the success of a religious theory.

Evolution is not the opposite of creationism anyway - creationists just set it up that way because it threatens their beliefs. If most of the rational world had their way, these debates would never happen because of how totally unrelated the two subjects are.

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Marrickville, Australia

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#60440
Nov 23, 2012
 
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
No, you could not be more wrong.
People believe the theory of evolution because of the massive amount of evidence supporting it. Creationists will not even attempt to make a "theory of creation" so by definition alone, and fact as well, there is not one bit of evidence that supports the creation myth.
You got one thing right, when we evolutionists die we will be gone. But so will you creationists. And history will remember that we were right and that you were pathetically wrong.
Well if there is so much of evidence to suport TOE how come you lot can never come up with any of it? My point here is also made.

I can demonstrate the folley behind any you present. IOW you have mountains of hand waving to present just like your evidence in junk dna was.

So you are going for 'they said so'. This is a forum pal. Why bother coming on here if you think a sweeping statement like that cuts to the chase of any debate. You would be laughed off a serious debate forum on one on one.

The problem with you is that is the best you have got, vaguary.

I implore you to present some of this so call mountain of evidence. So far you lot have bombed out on many supposed supports for TOE.

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#60441
Nov 23, 2012
 
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>Oh quack quack.

So far at just a quick revamp I have locked horns with you lot of evos over junk dna, vestigal organs and backbones, birds and whales, the myth of 1%, ervs.

You however are too stupid to understand that in fact modern bird footprints dated to 212mya, whale bones in Michagan in strata 290myo, 100% functional dna, fossil evidence aligning with my one scenario in Genesis is evidence that is just as robust as the data and interpretations you have to present, that is if ever you did.

You are expecting some library of convolutions like you are used to. I as a creationist of no particular variety do not need libraries of outdated woffle and flavour of the month. For a start I do not need to demonstrate ancestry of molecules to man and that saves a heck of a lot of paper.

So you have failed to refute the fact that 100% functional genome is very supportive of a creationist paradigm.

Feel free to offer any other great evidence you reckon you have seeing as you evos bombed out on anything discussed so far with me. Off you go.

You can try the good old twoddle around chromosome 2, your nested hierarchies that are a mess or whatever you like. Go!
Show me a human, ape, primate or any other modern animal fossil preserved next to a dinosaur fossil. Go!

Level 3

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#60442
Nov 23, 2012
 
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh quack quack.
So far at just a quick revamp I have locked horns with you lot of evos over junk dna, vestigal organs and backbones, birds and whales, the myth of 1%, ervs.
You however are too stupid to understand that in fact modern bird footprints dated to 212mya, whale bones in Michagan in strata 290myo, 100% functional dna, fossil evidence aligning with my one scenario in Genesis is evidence that is just as robust as the data and interpretations you have to present, that is if ever you did.
You are expecting some library of convolutions like you are used to. I as a creationist of no particular variety do not need libraries of outdated woffle and flavour of the month. For a start I do not need to demonstrate ancestry of molecules to man and that saves a heck of a lot of paper.
So you have failed to refute the fact that 100% functional genome is very supportive of a creationist paradigm.
Feel free to offer any other great evidence you reckon you have seeing as you evos bombed out on anything discussed so far with me. Off you go.
You can try the good old twoddle around chromosome 2, your nested hierarchies that are a mess or whatever you like. Go!
Do you have like... extreme self esteem issues? Why do you feel the need to constantly "update" us on the debate by regurgitating the same spam over and over again - and then concluding that by virtue of your superior spamming skills you have "won." No one is competing with you. This isn't a competition. Do we compete with children who still believe that storks deliver babies for mommy and daddy?

Level 3

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#60443
Nov 23, 2012
 
TJ Monk wrote:
<quoted text>
Creation is the best theory...only true story as why we are here. Evolutionists avoid creation to escape their submission to a Higher Source. Evolutionists try to be brave and "go it alone" when they are bound by the law of gravity and all physics. Cowards, self-denial FREAKSHOWS....are what evolutionists are! You will die, DIE....in time. God is eternal, never dies and the advancing universe proves His power. When you evolutions die....you will be gone......
You are a fascinating person.

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#60444
Nov 23, 2012
 
timn17 wrote:
Maz, I'm gonna put this in a separate post so that maybe you read it this time. You must make creationism stand on it's own as a theory. You can't find "proof" for it by poking holes on scientific theory. You have to find your own proof. Even if the TOE was found to be entirely wrong, which will not happen, that would not prove creationism. Do you understand that? The failure of a scientific theory is not the success of a religious theory.

Evolution is not the opposite of creationism anyway - creationists just set it up that way because it threatens their beliefs. If most of the rational world had their way, these debates would never happen because of how totally unrelated the two subjects are.
Creation science can't stand as a theory. Creation science has the magic chess piece that allows them to follow the path of least resistance. The magic of God.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#60445
Nov 23, 2012
 
ARGUING with IDIOTS wrote:
<quoted text>
Many keep saying there is massive evidence, but they can never produce any but refer you to others for a defense.
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.

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Marrickville, Australia

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#60446
Nov 23, 2012
 
ARGUING with IDIOTS wrote:
<quoted text>
Many keep saying there is massive evidence, but they can never produce any but refer you to others for a defense.
They are too scared to present any of this massive amount of gobble because some are still recovering from having their junk dna carpet pulled from underneath their feet.

It is the sound of gobsmacked silence. Creos will be lucky to engage any of the evo community in a scientific debate. For a start I am not sure any of them knows what a science really should look like. eg the predictability of a crystal ball is not a good start.

Level 2

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#60447
Nov 23, 2012
 
ToManyLaws wrote:
<quoted text>
That is true. I am glad your religion is dying. Each year more churches close and the parking lots have less cars in them.
Irony...
Many are leaving because of the truth while many are coming in because they love the truth. The church of God can never die.

Level 3

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#60448
Nov 23, 2012
 
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
Well if there is so much of evidence to suport TOE how come you lot can never come up with any of it? My point here is also made.
I can demonstrate the folley behind any you present. IOW you have mountains of hand waving to present just like your evidence in junk dna was.
So you are going for 'they said so'. This is a forum pal. Why bother coming on here if you think a sweeping statement like that cuts to the chase of any debate. You would be laughed off a serious debate forum on one on one.
The problem with you is that is the best you have got, vaguary.
I implore you to present some of this so call mountain of evidence. So far you lot have bombed out on many supposed supports for TOE.
To list all the evidence would take much longer than the space we are allotted here. Would you like evidence from comparative physiology, evidence from paleontology, evidence from anatomy, evidence from geographical distribution, etc, etc, etc.

Take your pick.

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.

Level 2

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#60449
Nov 23, 2012
 
anonymous wrote:
<quoted text>
The one between your ears?
Try elsewhere, you lose.

Level 3

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#60450
Nov 23, 2012
 
NikkiShae wrote:
<quoted text>
Creation science can't stand as a theory. Creation science has the magic chess piece that allows them to follow the path of least resistance. The magic of God.
Oh, I know lol. That's why I'm telling her to make her claims stand on their own rather than poke holes in scientific theory. This is something that I know she can't do.

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Marrickville, Australia

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#60451
Nov 23, 2012
 
timn17 wrote:
Maz, I'm gonna put this in a separate post so that maybe you read it this time. You must make creationism stand on it's own as a theory. You can't find "proof" for it by poking holes on scientific theory. You have to find your own proof. Even if the TOE was found to be entirely wrong, which will not happen, that would not prove creationism. Do you understand that? The failure of a scientific theory is not the success of a religious theory.
Evolution is not the opposite of creationism anyway - creationists just set it up that way because it threatens their beliefs. If most of the rational world had their way, these debates would never happen because of how totally unrelated the two subjects are.
This is entirely your opinion and your take when you are still recovering from over 150 years of falsified knucklewalking ancestry and decades of sprooking to junk dna.

What sort of a bizarre comment is this 'evolution is not the opposite of creationism anyway'? That is only relevant if one is confused fence sitter like an IDer.

I have just woken you lot up to the folley of a decade of junk dna being shoved down creos throats and you have the hide to say creos set it up according to their beliefs. Shame on you, ignoramous!

Level 3

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#60452
Nov 23, 2012
 
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
They are too scared to present any of this massive amount of gobble because some are still recovering from having their junk dna carpet pulled from underneath their feet.
It is the sound of gobsmacked silence. Creos will be lucky to engage any of the evo community in a scientific debate. For a start I am not sure any of them knows what a science really should look like. eg the predictability of a crystal ball is not a good start.
You have an inexplicably high opinion of your debating skills.

Level 2

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#60453
Nov 23, 2012
 
timn17 wrote:
<quoted text>Charles, let's be serious - as dim as she is and as astoundingly flawed her arguments/data are, you still don't have the slightest clue what she posted.
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.

Level 3

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#60454
Nov 23, 2012
 
Dunning krueger effect. Maz in a nutshell. Look it up.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#60455
Nov 23, 2012
 
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
Well if there is so much of evidence to suport TOE how come you lot can never come up with any of it? My point here is also made.
I can demonstrate the folley behind any you present. IOW you have mountains of hand waving to present just like your evidence in junk dna was.
So you are going for 'they said so'. This is a forum pal. Why bother coming on here if you think a sweeping statement like that cuts to the chase of any debate. You would be laughed off a serious debate forum on one on one.
The problem with you is that is the best you have got, vaguary.
I implore you to present some of this so call mountain of evidence. So far you lot have bombed out on many supposed supports for TOE.
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?

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#60456
Nov 23, 2012
 
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.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#60457
Nov 23, 2012
 
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
They are too scared to present any of this massive amount of gobble because some are still recovering from having their junk dna carpet pulled from underneath their feet.
It is the sound of gobsmacked silence. Creos will be lucky to engage any of the evo community in a scientific debate. For a start I am not sure any of them knows what a science really should look like. eg the predictability of a crystal ball is not a good start.
You must just love being wrong.

Of course no one will post instantaneously in response to your nonsense. You were told time and time again why what you posted was nonsense and you persisted.

What I have trouble with is the hubris of these creatards. They think that they can debunk the work of over 150 years by reading an article that they don't understand.

Mav of course is wrong with her claims about the nature of non-coding DNA and evolution. Let's see how wrong she is about evidence.

Level 2

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#60458
Nov 23, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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.
This is just a lesson for you. God almighty is the owner of all things, including your property and land.

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

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 56,561 - 56,580 of106,238
|
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.

•••
•••
•••
•••