Evolution vs. Creation

High school senior Zack Kopplin is leading the fight to repeal the Louisiana Science Education Act of 2008. Full Story
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."

“River of tears flowing out of ”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

West Plains

#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.
anonymous

Franklin, PA

#60674 Nov 24, 2012
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
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?
Dirt simple, by the design of the pelvis. Lucy's pelvis clearly suggested bipedalism. You could also use the position of the foramen magnum if it is available.

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Everton, Australia

#60675 Nov 24, 2012
Orangelion wrote:
<quoted text>
You don't have to be an idiot to be challenged. What about narcissists and bipolars?
These are still non furry, obligate bipeds with the ability to make meaning of the world, which is the criterion for that species general representation (without disability) to be included in the human race.

“River of tears flowing out of ”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

West Plains

#60676 Nov 24, 2012
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
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?
So far, and I repeat this because it can't be repeated often enough, you have shown nothing but biased nonsense and have provided nothing to refute evolution. You are batting 1000. You have that going for you.

I am not and have never claimed to be an expert on Human origins, but any reasonable person can see that "Lucy" is only one piece of a puzzle. If it turns out that it is not part of our fossil line, that will not refute human evolution from a common ancestor to the other great apes. There is DNA evidence, homology, ERV evidence, chromosomal evidence and more as I understand it that continue to support that. Your argument is again, a strawman. You are taking one single controversial piece of evidence and beating it pieces as much as your limited ability allows and ignoring the real story.

No surprises here. Just your usual anti-science clown.
Orangelion

Rhyl, UK

#60677 Nov 24, 2012
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
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."
This is your best method is it? And yes, in a way I am calling the ill.

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Everton, Australia

#60678 Nov 24, 2012
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
When are you lot going to learn what it is to debate.

So you are now saying that every single example is a fraudulent misrepresention and there are no well credentialled researchers that are creationists or are you just nit picking a few.

Here is another list for you to demonstrate what an empty vessel you actually are when it comes to this topic.

http://www.creationinfo.com/list.htm

I took the time to find examples to support my assertion and you just sit there on your proverbial behind and woffle on. Some of you are so incredibly physically and intelectually lazy. Or is it that you have zilch research skills but come to debating forums just to waste everyones time. That is why you don't learn and have the memory retention of a piece of cheese.

I have already dealt with an article that tries to refute scientists flocking to creationism in droves. Would you like to have the same discussion again? I even provided the refute for you evos.

So you have nothing to say about the guts of the topic at hand, supporting TOE via fossil evidence, but you will have some meaningless remark to add to an aside as if not one credible researcher could be a creo. Is that your point? Or are you just wasting time nit picking for the sake of it?

Don't expect a reply to this level of pointless and unsupported rhetoric and don't think that means anymore than I can't be bothered spamming the thread with off topic nonsense. There are plenty here that want to do that!

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#60679 Nov 24, 2012
Orangelion wrote:
<quoted text>
This is your best method is it? And yes, in a way I am calling the ill.
That's the thing, if they're ill, then you're certifiable for believing in something that's not real.

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Everton, Australia

#60680 Nov 24, 2012
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>So far, and I repeat this because it can't be repeated often enough, you have shown nothing but biased nonsense and have provided nothing to refute evolution. You are batting 1000. You have that going for you.
I am not and have never claimed to be an expert on Human origins, but any reasonable person can see that "Lucy" is only one piece of a puzzle. If it turns out that it is not part of our fossil line, that will not refute human evolution from a common ancestor to the other great apes. There is DNA evidence, homology, ERV evidence, chromosomal evidence and more as I understand it that continue to support that. Your argument is again, a strawman. You are taking one single controversial piece of evidence and beating it pieces as much as your limited ability allows and ignoring the real story.
No surprises here. Just your usual anti-science clown.
But you have not emonstrated how I build strawmen and you most certainly have not provided any sort of suport at all.

Most of my links are from evo sites and much is the actual peer reviewed research. Some of you evos have no idea what a creo site or evo site is suggesting that articles from Nature are creationsist. Pathetic and insane.

You keep saying I have limited ability, yet I am the only one here that is able to post direct support for my assertions

You say I misrepresent but have never provided any example and supported refute to any thing I have ever said.

Again I say to you that you are a looser that has no research skills, likely has no idea how to source anything, thinks his opinion is the end of the matter, and has delusions of being a big evotard hero here.

You are continually proving what an idiot you really are!

If you disagree articulate an appropriate response at your concern or shut the heck up!
anonymous

Franklin, PA

#60681 Nov 24, 2012
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>So far, and I repeat this because it can't be repeated often enough, you have shown nothing but biased nonsense and have provided nothing to refute evolution. You are batting 1000. You have that going for you.
I am not and have never claimed to be an expert on Human origins, but any reasonable person can see that "Lucy" is only one piece of a puzzle. If it turns out that it is not part of our fossil line, that will not refute human evolution from a common ancestor to the other great apes. There is DNA evidence, homology, ERV evidence, chromosomal evidence and more as I understand it that continue to support that. Your argument is again, a strawman. You are taking one single controversial piece of evidence and beating it pieces as much as your limited ability allows and ignoring the real story.
No surprises here. Just your usual anti-science clown.
I think that the argument is simply invalid. It seems that some ape ancestors were more bipedal then we previously thought. We assumed that the one current species with the unique quality of bipedalism would be less representative of older common ancestors. That's common sense but apparently not what some discoveries suggest.

It certainly doesn't mean that we have to burn all of the evolutionary scientists at the stake and go crying to god for forgiveness.

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
Add a word and drop a word (Jan '14) 2 min DILF 1,582
last word - first (Jun '12) 3 min DILF 7,107
Word Association (Mar '10) 4 min DILF 16,118
Who are some of your favorite people on the off... (Dec '13) 5 min DILF 107
Funny!! Word association game. (Nov '13) 6 min Eddie Haskell 1,895
Add a Word, Ruin a Movie (Oct '13) 7 min DILF 3,513
True or False Game 7 min Hoosier Hillbilly 415
What are you thinking about now? (Jun '10) 50 min Hoosier Hillbilly 22,243
What song are you listening to right now? (Apr '08) 3 hr wichita-rick 149,099
Do you have a Topix crush? (Jun '11) 6 hr Captn Morgan 6,841
Air Force Member Arrested After Giving Minnesot... 10 hr Sam 4

Weird People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE