Evolution vs. Creation

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

Level 2

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

#60654 Nov 24, 2012
Orangelion wrote:
<quoted text>
Transgender people aren't couragious, but only deluded and mentally challenged.
True.

“Don't be mad at me.”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

I'm just a little bunny.

#60655 Nov 24, 2012
Organic or Darwinian evolution is the study of how life has evolved on this planet. Creationism is the belief in the creation of life by the deity of your choice.

Seems to me the real debate should be abiogeneis versus religious creationism. Those two topics are counter to each other, while evolution doesn't say anything about the creation of life. This would make the most sense, but knowing the opposing side in this argument, sense is not a prerequisite for them.

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Everton, Australia

#60656 Nov 24, 2012
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>I have read what you post. You don't understand anything about science. Just because you say it, does not make it so and in this case that is a very fair and accurate statement. The fact that you post what you do with such assurety is testament to how little you understand.
Because rubbish has links that you can provide here does not change the condition of that rubbish.
I have looked at several of the links you have provided in the past and they no more support your claims than if you would have provided links to Disney Land. You misinterpret scientific findings and clearly for the purpose of supporting you own beliefs. If your beliefs are so strong, I can imagine how they need to be supported on pillars of lies and misinterpretation.
Listen you fool, to say that you have read and bla bla bla means absolutely nothing to me or anyone else. That is opinion.

Opinion is suported by adding such things as research and considered responses.

So far none of you get this at all. Not one single evo here gets this in the slightest.

The entire freaken lot of you think that all you have to say is bla and that is that,\.

On what planet of morons did you learn to debate?

If you disagree with anything I have said or suggest misrepresentation then articulate an appropriate response to the area of concern and stop wasting both my time and thread space with your generalities, woffle and unsupported opinion.

For now anything that I have ever said stands. That is because I have supported it with more than my opinion at least, Get it????? You lot generally aren't even educated sufficiently to find your own material. I have to supply it for you.

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#60657 Nov 24, 2012
Orangelion wrote:
<quoted text>
Transgender people aren't couragious, but only deluded and mentally challenged.
You described religious people, not transgendered people. They are themselves, they become who they should be in spite of all odds and morons like you who fear anything different than you. So no, they are not deluded, and certainly not mentally challenged, many of them work in the software industry, and some of them can code circles around the best straight person on a bad day.

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#60658 Nov 24, 2012
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
Listen you fool, to say that you have read and bla bla bla means absolutely nothing to me or anyone else. That is opinion.
Opinion is suported by adding such things as research and considered responses.
So far none of you get this at all. Not one single evo here gets this in the slightest.
The entire freaken lot of you think that all you have to say is bla and that is that,\.
On what planet of morons did you learn to debate?
If you disagree with anything I have said or suggest misrepresentation then articulate an appropriate response to the area of concern and stop wasting both my time and thread space with your generalities, woffle and unsupported opinion.
For now anything that I have ever said stands. That is because I have supported it with more than my opinion at least, Get it????? You lot generally aren't even educated sufficiently to find your own material. I have to supply it for you.
Everything you post contradicts what you state, end of story. Deny that all you want, it won't change that fact.

Level 2

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

#60659 Nov 24, 2012
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
What is it about you that you absolutely refuse to discuss the topic and have wasted pages and pages going on about this woffle of yours.
Why don't you start a philosophy thread, because it apears you have no intention on speaking to the evolution/creation debate and have never gone anywhere near science.
Ofcourse, you are in a way right.
Question will bring about questions, and so, it goes on and on, some times on the topic, while some time, off-topic...
anonymous

Franklin, PA

#60660 Nov 24, 2012
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
Does this topic have anything to do with the evolution/creation debate?
Well, that's kind of what I was asking, wasn't it?
Orangelion

Rhyl, UK

#60661 Nov 24, 2012
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
You described religious people, not transgendered people. They are themselves, they become who they should be in spite of all odds and morons like you who fear anything different than you. So no, they are not deluded, and certainly not mentally challenged, many of them work in the software industry, and some of them can code circles around the best straight person on a bad day.
Whether or not many transgenders worked in the software industry does not mean they aren't challenged. What about David Cameron? He's the prime minister, it still doesn't change the fact that they are fools. And you have no proof to back up evolution and the big bang, while christians have proof to back themselves up.
anonymous

Franklin, PA

#60662 Nov 24, 2012
Charles Idemi wrote:
<quoted text> The quest continues.
It seems that you've decided that you've already got all the answers.

What are you questing for? The perfect lie?

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Everton, Australia

#60663 Nov 24, 2012
Would you evos like to go back to square one with the Proffessors initial post?

Let's do junk dna again, where evos will woffle on blindly about the 98% of junk non coding dna that surely proves evolution is true.

Oh wait!!!! Oh that's right, some evo researchers are now suggesting that is nore than likely that 100% of the genome is functional.

The same goes for vestigial organs, single celled LUCA the queen of evolutionary support killed by HGT, wrist bones that proved mankind had a knucklewalking ancestry and therefore must have evolved from some bent over ape, the same fossils demonstrating ancestry to a knucklewalker and now a biped, bipedalism being soley a human trait gone, accumulating beneficial mutations accruing without disasterous cost - gone, etc etc etc, all tossed aside generally on the back of one single new finding.

There really is no debate. It is quite obvious to me that evolutionary reseachers have no idea what they are talking about.

There are many well credentialed creationists some of which have left TOE behind on the back of what they have discerned from the data available.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/CMI_list_of_scie...

Regardless of what evos have to say about creos, evolutionary history suggests that one would have great difficulty in presenting worse and less credible assertions and hypothesis than what evolutionists have to present. This is my conclusion to the evolution/creation debate.

No one has proven anything beyond doubt and many scenarios are possible if one is talking about a power mankind knows nothing about.

You lot can chase your tails adnauseum forever, and still you will never recover from your history of evolutionary supports that now reside in the huge rubbish bin of evolutionary delusions past!
anonymous

Franklin, PA

#60664 Nov 24, 2012
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
I suspect that evolutionists that have no ide what they are on about like to discuss philosophies in place of science because their evo science always lets them down.
So far they havce failed the Professors challenge and have absolutely nothing intelligent to say about non coding dna and how that informs TOE, they have changed the meaning of vestigial organs to align with the falsification of the initial definition of no function, they have fraudulently misrepresented the fusion site of human ch2, ervs are nothing more than mythical ghosts.
Now some want to have a shot at supporting the fossil record, which is the topic I like most.
It appears being wrapped up in transgenderr talk demonstrates that most evolutionists have got nothing intelligent to say on the evolution/creation debate. I am not surprised!
Well, despite some totally wrong words, very long run-on sentences, and a smattering of misunderstanding of the significance behind vestigial organs, Chromosome 2 and ERVs, I think everyone is doing very well at explaining things.

Now, I don't know where the transgender stuff started and I doubt it has meaning in the debate, but as I see it, that started with a comment from Orangelion. I'm fairly sure that person is defending Creationism.

Less trash-talk! Less bluster! More content.

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#60665 Nov 24, 2012
Orangelion wrote:
<quoted text>
Whether or not many transgenders worked in the software industry does not mean they aren't challenged. What about David Cameron? He's the prime minister, it still doesn't change the fact that they are fools. And you have no proof to back up evolution and the big bang, while christians have proof to back themselves up.
You can't be mentally challenged and be successful in software development. Are you completely and totally clueless?

Also, where is your "proof?" Still have yet to see anything presented that was more convincing than the grainy photos of "bigfoot."

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#60666 Nov 24, 2012
MazHere wrote:
Would you evos like to go back to square one with the Proffessors initial post?
Let's do junk dna again, where evos will woffle on blindly about the 98% of junk non coding dna that surely proves evolution is true.
Oh wait!!!! Oh that's right, some evo researchers are now suggesting that is nore than likely that 100% of the genome is functional.
The same goes for vestigial organs, single celled LUCA the queen of evolutionary support killed by HGT, wrist bones that proved mankind had a knucklewalking ancestry and therefore must have evolved from some bent over ape, the same fossils demonstrating ancestry to a knucklewalker and now a biped, bipedalism being soley a human trait gone, accumulating beneficial mutations accruing without disasterous cost - gone, etc etc etc, all tossed aside generally on the back of one single new finding.
There really is no debate. It is quite obvious to me that evolutionary reseachers have no idea what they are talking about.
There are many well credentialed creationists some of which have left TOE behind on the back of what they have discerned from the data available.
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/CMI_list_of_scie...
Regardless of what evos have to say about creos, evolutionary history suggests that one would have great difficulty in presenting worse and less credible assertions and hypothesis than what evolutionists have to present. This is my conclusion to the evolution/creation debate.
No one has proven anything beyond doubt and many scenarios are possible if one is talking about a power mankind knows nothing about.
You lot can chase your tails adnauseum forever, and still you will never recover from your history of evolutionary supports that now reside in the huge rubbish bin of evolutionary delusions past!
Oh, that's the list the DI gathered, you know none of those are biologists, their opinions on evolution are about as valid as a monkey's opinion on what purse looks best with an outfit. Not to mention a lot of those scientists wanted to be removed from the list, and the few remaining are not published.
anonymous

Franklin, PA

#60667 Nov 24, 2012
MazHere wrote:
Would you evos like to go back to square one with the Proffessors initial post?
Let's do junk dna again, where evos will woffle on blindly about the 98% of junk non coding dna that surely proves evolution is true.
Oh wait!!!! Oh that's right, some evo researchers are now suggesting that is nore than likely that 100% of the genome is functional.
The same goes for vestigial organs, single celled LUCA the queen of evolutionary support killed by HGT, wrist bones that proved mankind had a knucklewalking ancestry and therefore must have evolved from some bent over ape, the same fossils demonstrating ancestry to a knucklewalker and now a biped, bipedalism being soley a human trait gone, accumulating beneficial mutations accruing without disasterous cost - gone, etc etc etc, all tossed aside generally on the back of one single new finding.
There really is no debate. It is quite obvious to me that evolutionary reseachers have no idea what they are talking about.
There are many well credentialed creationists some of which have left TOE behind on the back of what they have discerned from the data available.
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/CMI_list_of_scie...
Regardless of what evos have to say about creos, evolutionary history suggests that one would have great difficulty in presenting worse and less credible assertions and hypothesis than what evolutionists have to present. This is my conclusion to the evolution/creation debate.
No one has proven anything beyond doubt and many scenarios are possible if one is talking about a power mankind knows nothing about.
You lot can chase your tails adnauseum forever, and still you will never recover from your history of evolutionary supports that now reside in the huge rubbish bin of evolutionary delusions past!
We don't talk about a power that no one knows anything about. You do! We don't even claim that such a power exists because we don't have supporting evidence.

You're just demanding that people prove your god doesn't exist. We've already said that science doesn't waste time on proving negatives. You're not introducing anything new to the debate other than maybe putting a biker-chick spin on creationism! I'll admit, that's pretty new!

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Everton, Australia

#60668 Nov 24, 2012
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
Listen, there is no use wasting space woffling on.
Are you suggesting afarensis is a good example of a fossil that supports human evolution or are you just ranting?
This particular morphology appears also in Australopithecus robustus. The presence of the morphology in both the latter and Au. afarensis and its absence in modern humans cast doubt on the role of Au. afarensis as a modern human ancestor. The ramal anatomy of the earlier Ardipithecus ramidus is virtually that of a chimpanzee, corroborating the proposed phylogenetic scenario.
http://www.pnas.org/content/104/16/6568.abstr...
http://www.askabiologist.org.uk/answers/viewt...
What leads you to still suggest that Lucy is a human ancestor as opposed to a chimp ancestor in light of the above recent research from 2006?
I can quote other reseaerchers that doubt the validity of afarensis being in the human line eg Dawkins in An Ancestors Tale, but what makes you think she should stay there other than some evos say she should?
Come on Dan, come on Subductionzone, you lot have bombed out on every attempt so far to support TOE, now some think the fossil evidence will provide the support for TOE you seek.

You lot could not find any link and I provided one. Here is a better on seeing as you are unable to supply your own material.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_human_ev...

Lucy, is challenged as a human ancestor and quite a few researchers suggest Lucy and all her purported humanity actually has no humanity in her and is an ancestor or relative of the chimp.

Bipedalism is no longer solely a human trait.
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/319/5870/16...

Hawkins supports research that suggests Lucy is a gorilla ancestor.

You can go into most of the fossils in the link and see exactly what they did find, if it was pieced together from an assumption (eg the mess in rudolfensis), remembering that very few fossils provide credible and reliable data. You can see how evo researchers have made up entire life stories on the basis of a single bone. Of course Wiki is not comprehensive but is a good place to start for a beginner.

There are no chimp fossils to demonstrate chimp ancestry meaning one entire half of the story is missing. Let me say that if a creationist tried to pass off a similar scenario to evos we would be laughed off the forum. However that is the calibre of evidence evos suggest is good enough for them.

What makes you think little tiny Lucy with her little brain and curved fingers, found without feet, was any more bipedal than a chimp or orang is today?
anonymous

Franklin, PA

#60669 Nov 24, 2012
Charles Idemi wrote:
<quoted text> Check the list of students graduating from each universities, also do a research in their faiths, or practically engage in questionaires, and see their responses.
When I joined the military, they asked what faith I was. I entered Catholic as that is how I was raised. I haven't been to a church in 30 years and don't intend to start. Some things you do just because others want it.

Don't bother using those numbers. They're just something to put on a card, in case people get shipped home in a box.
Orangelion

Rhyl, UK

#60670 Nov 24, 2012
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
You can't be mentally challenged and be successful in software development. Are you completely and totally clueless?
Also, where is your "proof?" Still have yet to see anything presented that was more convincing than the grainy photos of "bigfoot."
You don't have to be an idiot to be challenged. What about narcissists and bipolars?

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Everton, Australia

#60671 Nov 24, 2012
anonymous wrote:
<quoted text>
We don't talk about a power that no one knows anything about. You do! We don't even claim that such a power exists because we don't have supporting evidence.
You're just demanding that people prove your god doesn't exist. We've already said that science doesn't waste time on proving negatives. You're not introducing anything new to the debate other than maybe putting a biker-chick spin on creationism! I'll admit, that's pretty new!
Again you prove evos here are nothing more than wofflers. I am not asking you to prove the negatives you goose. I am asking for some evidence for evolution because so far you lot have bombed out at every attempt. It is not looking good for you evos.

Regardless of your many words, in the end you are gobsmacked and unable to mount an appropriate reply that identified the specific concern, not even one can you identify, and just post for the sake of trying to justify your existence.

You see the post above, with links,? You should try supporting that big attitude of yours one day and learn how to conduct a debate.

You obviously have no idea why your researchers suggest Afarensis is in the human line, nor why some say she isn't. All you can do is prattle on.

You probably think she was found in tact and complete with feet. Oh I take that back. It is more likely that you are not thinking anything past I know because some researchers that are consistently wrong said so.

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#60672 Nov 24, 2012
Orangelion wrote:
<quoted text>
You don't have to be an idiot to be challenged. What about narcissists and bipolars?
Wow, so you're calling them ill. Well, it would still be better than having a delusion that your imaginary friend talks to you, let alone effects the real world, even if you call that imaginary friend "god."

“Don't be mad at me.”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

I'm just a little bunny.

#60673 Nov 24, 2012
MazHere wrote:
Would you evos like to go back to square one with the Proffessors initial post?
Let's do junk dna again, where evos will woffle on blindly about the 98% of junk non coding dna that surely proves evolution is true.
Oh wait!!!! Oh that's right, some evo researchers are now suggesting that is nore than likely that 100% of the genome is functional.
The same goes for vestigial organs, single celled LUCA the queen of evolutionary support killed by HGT, wrist bones that proved mankind had a knucklewalking ancestry and therefore must have evolved from some bent over ape, the same fossils demonstrating ancestry to a knucklewalker and now a biped, bipedalism being soley a human trait gone, accumulating beneficial mutations accruing without disasterous cost - gone, etc etc etc, all tossed aside generally on the back of one single new finding.
There really is no debate. It is quite obvious to me that evolutionary reseachers have no idea what they are talking about.
There are many well credentialed creationists some of which have left TOE behind on the back of what they have discerned from the data available.
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/CMI_list_of_scie...
Regardless of what evos have to say about creos, evolutionary history suggests that one would have great difficulty in presenting worse and less credible assertions and hypothesis than what evolutionists have to present. This is my conclusion to the evolution/creation debate.
No one has proven anything beyond doubt and many scenarios are possible if one is talking about a power mankind knows nothing about.
You lot can chase your tails adnauseum forever, and still you will never recover from your history of evolutionary supports that now reside in the huge rubbish bin of evolutionary delusions past!
Here is a prime example of using what you don't understand. Whether all, some or none of the so-called "junk DNA" has a function does not refute evolution in the least. It is no different from arguing which Wright brother played a larger role in the first flight. They still flew the plane.

You are erroneously taking an area of discovery out of context, erroneously declaring any controversy as falsifying evolution and then publishing this nonsense on here. It is a strawman argument and a piss poor one at that.

Science did not discover the Okapi until 1901. Was this failure to discover this new animal until that date evidence that science was a failure? No. Argument and controversy over new areas research are part and parcel of good science.

The idea that someone challenges the discoveries of science is necessary and desireable. I just wish it was done by more knowledgeable and intellegent people.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form 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.

Weird Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Name a smell you love to smell! (Jan '14) 4 min Go Blue Forever 1,003
Make a Story / 4 Words Only (Nov '08) 4 min liam cul8r 25,656
News Will Alaska's weird winter be followed by equal... 5 min Go Blue Forever 43
News Alaska police officers corral grazing miniature... 7 min Go Blue Forever 1
News Giant alligator is back at Florida golf course,... 8 min Go Blue Forever 1
What song are you listening to right now? (Apr '08) 15 min Classic 159,785
Whatcha' doing? (Apr '12) 18 min Red_Forman 8,094
6 letter word ...change one letter game (Oct '08) 7 hr say it aint so 28,125
News 15 Weird Weight-Loss Tricks That Work 7 hr wichita-rick 6
More from around the web