Evolution vs. Creation

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

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#60682 Nov 24, 2012
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
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!
No, the question is when are you going to learn? Also, when are you going to learn how to type?

Still no published biologists, and the list is highly suspect. Can you be honest at all?
Orangelion

Rhyl, UK

#60683 Nov 24, 2012
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
That's the thing, if they're ill, then you're certifiable for believing in something that's not real.
I have evidence to prove God exists.
anonymous

Franklin, PA

#60684 Nov 24, 2012
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
In all honesty, I tend to be skeptical of new announcements in the science community because I expect a bit of self-promotion. When I post, I usually fact-check at Wikipedia where they state that Lucy has leg bones and a partial pelvis which led scientists to their conclusions.

Go ahead and read!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucy_%28Australo...

Lucy isn't a cold fusion dud. She's a real and significant discovery.
anonymous

Franklin, PA

#60685 Nov 24, 2012
Orangelion wrote:
<quoted text>
I have evidence to prove God exists.
Are you keeping it a secret?

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#60686 Nov 24, 2012
Orangelion wrote:
<quoted text>
I have evidence to prove God exists.
Where is it?

“The strength of science is”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

founded in facts.

#60687 Nov 24, 2012
If my grandparents were married in 1928, lived, had children who in turn married and had children of there own, arguing when the marriage occured would not change the fact that they were married and so forth.

Arguing that finding certain fossil evidence at an unexpected time is just the same thing. It may change the timeline, alter where some key events may have taken place but it doesn't destroy the concept of evolution.

For instance, if while looking through family papers I discover a picture of my grandparents wedding dated 1923, that doesn't mean they weren't married. It means that based on the evidence other family members had there is a discrepency in the date the marriage took place. It could be the photo was mislabelled or it is correct. There would be much controversy amongst the family as to which is correct, but none would say that there was no marriage as a result of the new evidence.

It is a simple concept I know, but one that seems to be abused on here as if the abuser was in possession of Thor's hammer. With such, these people gleefully believe they are destroying the foundations of evolution. This is further based on the misconception that science is based on popularity rather than on facts. Evolution is not an accepted theory because it is popular. It is an accepted theory because of the facts.

I invite the open minded, critical thinking, person to watch how radical creationists abuse their ignorance on here daily. Watch them rant on in some illogical manner and then declare themselves the winner of whatever it is they think they won. The names of the characters may change, but the stupidity, ignorance and hubris remain the same.

“The strength of science is”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

founded in facts.

#60688 Nov 24, 2012
anonymous wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
I need to read more on human evolution as this has been an area for which I have shown little interest until the last few years. I can only speak generally about it. I agree, changes in conclusions about a single fossil or lineage, won't bring the theory down, no matter how much some think it will.

“The strength of science is”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

founded in facts.

#60689 Nov 24, 2012
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
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!
Regardless of where your links come from is irrelevant to how you misuse them. As to your strawman arguments, it is selfevident to anyone reading your posts. You are using one now. Your statement about some evos makes no sense. It is unintelligible. Are you making a confession with regards to pathetic and insane? Posting links does not show ability. Misusing what those links mean to support your point show dishonesty at best and ignorance at the least. The links of yours that I have seen do not support what you assert. To say so is an outright lie.

Now you make the personal attacks that I was expecting to come sooner or later. I have articulated an appropriate response many times over the last few months. You stand there with you mouth agape and provide nothing substantive in return but more of the same. You claim evolution is wrong because of some fossilized bird-like footprints, but even if they prove to be those of birds, it would not refute evolution. It would just change the picture of evolution. The fact that you feel this ability of science is wrong is just further evidence that you don't understand science or evolution.

Now, you can respond back with personal attacks, lies, strawman arguments and misused evidence and declare yourself the winner. At least in that you are consistent. As evidence, I direct you to all of your many posts.
anonymous

Franklin, PA

#60690 Nov 24, 2012
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>I need to read more on human evolution as this has been an area for which I have shown little interest until the last few years. I can only speak generally about it. I agree, changes in conclusions about a single fossil or lineage, won't bring the theory down, no matter how much some think it will.
In this particular instance, I think reading on Ardipithicus ramidus is a good start.

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

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Everton, Australia

#60691 Nov 24, 2012
anonymous wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
Oh is that so? It is too bad that bipedalism is not a human trait. If you would ever bother to open the links I provide you would know that.

Indeed you have no idea if apes evolved from a biped, after all knuckle walking is now suggested to have evolved independently twice. There is no point my posting links because I don't believe any of you ever read them. You prefer to remain ignorant because then you can chase your tails all day.

Such a simplistic answer is yet again a demonstration that you have no idea.

Don't forget the Gonna pelvis has thrown the entire wofflely scenario to the rubbish bin again on the back of another single fossil find.

Before erectus supposedly had small brained babes that grew into small brained adults. That supports TOE. Now they have large brained babes grow into small brained adults. There is also another woffly scenraio to speculate as to how that MAY have occured. If this does not demonstrate they actually have no idea what they are saying nothing ever will.

Lucy is not evidence for mankinds evolution from an ape. Lucy has all the hallmarks of a non human ape regardless of bipedalism. Long curved fingers, small brained, 3.5ft tall, no speech, Are you evos now trying to suggest Lucy was an obligate biped with curved fingers or not?

It also means that over 700,000 thousand years Ardi's bipedal ape feet poofed into perfectly human feet with a human gait? Is that what you are suggesting?

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

#60692 Nov 24, 2012
Charles Idemi wrote:
<quoted text>Heretics?
You are not God to judge.
I don't have to be.

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Everton, Australia

#60693 Nov 24, 2012
DanFromSmithville wrote:
If my grandparents were married in 1928, lived, had children who in turn married and had children of there own, arguing when the marriage occured would not change the fact that they were married and so forth.
Arguing that finding certain fossil evidence at an unexpected time is just the same thing. It may change the timeline, alter where some key events may have taken place but it doesn't destroy the concept of evolution.
For instance, if while looking through family papers I discover a picture of my grandparents wedding dated 1923, that doesn't mean they weren't married. It means that based on the evidence other family members had there is a discrepency in the date the marriage took place. It could be the photo was mislabelled or it is correct. There would be much controversy amongst the family as to which is correct, but none would say that there was no marriage as a result of the new evidence.
It is a simple concept I know, but one that seems to be abused on here as if the abuser was in possession of Thor's hammer. With such, these people gleefully believe they are destroying the foundations of evolution. This is further based on the misconception that science is based on popularity rather than on facts. Evolution is not an accepted theory because it is popular. It is an accepted theory because of the facts.
I invite the open minded, critical thinking, person to watch how radical creationists abuse their ignorance on here daily. Watch them rant on in some illogical manner and then declare themselves the winner of whatever it is they think they won. The names of the characters may change, but the stupidity, ignorance and hubris remain the same.
Oh here we go more blather with no sign of research skills to speak of.

I declare myself one of the winners by default if nothing else.

To this day I have yet to see the majority of you evos post a link to research.

Hubris and woffle are actually unsupported opinion and that is exactly what you provide in every single one of your posts, and hand wave away any attempt to instruct you in this theory you lot know little about.

You are a total waste of space on a debating forum. After the calibre of evo I have come across previously you have nothing to toot your horn about. They would disown you.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#60694 Nov 24, 2012
Yes Mav, you had quite a list of scientists who believe in creation. Of course it really is not fair to include those from before Darwin's time. Before Newton's time there were very few if any scientists that believed in gravity, not the everyday gravity that makes you fall down, I am talking about how Newton extended the concept of gravity to the "heavens".

Anyway back to your list. Yes, very impressive. It is almost as impressive as the scientists in Project Steve:

http://ncse.com/taking-action/project-steve
anonymous

Franklin, PA

#60695 Nov 24, 2012
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh is that so? It is too bad that bipedalism is not a human trait. If you would ever bother to open the links I provide you would know that.
Indeed you have no idea if apes evolved from a biped, after all knuckle walking is now suggested to have evolved independently twice. There is no point my posting links because I don't believe any of you ever read them. You prefer to remain ignorant because then you can chase your tails all day.
Such a simplistic answer is yet again a demonstration that you have no idea.
Don't forget the Gonna pelvis has thrown the entire wofflely scenario to the rubbish bin again on the back of another single fossil find.
Before erectus supposedly had small brained babes that grew into small brained adults. That supports TOE. Now they have large brained babes grow into small brained adults. There is also another woffly scenraio to speculate as to how that MAY have occured. If this does not demonstrate they actually have no idea what they are saying nothing ever will.
Lucy is not evidence for mankinds evolution from an ape. Lucy has all the hallmarks of a non human ape regardless of bipedalism. Long curved fingers, small brained, 3.5ft tall, no speech, Are you evos now trying to suggest Lucy was an obligate biped with curved fingers or not?
It also means that over 700,000 thousand years Ardi's bipedal ape feet poofed into perfectly human feet with a human gait? Is that what you are suggesting?
1. I don't know about you but I walk on two legs.
2. I don't see anything about the "Gona Pelvis" that turns Evolution upside down.
3. I STILL don't know if "woffley" or whatever is a real word!
4. Lucy does show a link between humans and our common ancestors by virtue of the fact that she did walk bipedaly.
5. Ardipithicus did not POOF into having modern human feet. 700,000 years is a really long time. Homo Heidelbergensis was still the new kid on the block 700,000 years ago. Besides, those kinds of physiological changes can happen quickly as long as the motivational factors are there. For now, it's thought that Africa was going through some dramatic climate changes that reduced the forestland, compelling the species to adapt to life on the plains.

Everyone on this board has already dismissed incredulity as an argument. The evidence is what the evidence is.

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Everton, Australia

#60696 Nov 24, 2012
anonymous wrote:
<quoted text>
In all honesty, I tend to be skeptical of new announcements in the science community because I expect a bit of self-promotion. When I post, I usually fact-check at Wikipedia where they state that Lucy has leg bones and a partial pelvis which led scientists to their conclusions.
Go ahead and read!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucy_%28Australo...
Lucy isn't a cold fusion dud. She's a real and significant discovery.
Oh lovey, the link you provided speaks to Lucys pelvic reconstruction? I wasn't even going to mention that yet. When do you suppose they suddenly realized the need to reconstruct it to have an illiac flare?

If Lucys pelvis is such a great example of a primitive obligate bipedal ape then why do some well credentailled evo scientists provide good research for Lucy being a chimp ancestor? The fact is that now scientists have less idea what the common ancestor may have looked like than ever before.

There is a stack of research into bipeadism going back as far as the orang common ancestor, because they actually have what they believe are orang ancestor fossils, no chimps or gorillas but.

All announcements are new announcements at some time as was mankinds knucklewalking ancestry and as is anything you present that is recent. Your skepticism is not support for much at all.

It is an insult to direct me to a simplistic Wiki site. You are the one that needs to start there.

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Everton, Australia

#60698 Nov 24, 2012
Subduction Zone wrote:
Yes Mav, you had quite a list of scientists who believe in creation. Of course it really is not fair to include those from before Darwin's time. Before Newton's time there were very few if any scientists that believed in gravity, not the everyday gravity that makes you fall down, I am talking about how Newton extended the concept of gravity to the "heavens".
Anyway back to your list. Yes, very impressive. It is almost as impressive as the scientists in Project Steve:
http://ncse.com/taking-action/project-steve
Ok Suds, you can wriggle and squirm as much as you like. The fact is that only evomorons try to maintain that no creationist has appropriate qualifications to have made an informed choice to leave their TOE faith for another.

“The strength of science is”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

founded in facts.

#60699 Nov 24, 2012
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh here we go more blather with no sign of research skills to speak of.
I declare myself one of the winners by default if nothing else.
To this day I have yet to see the majority of you evos post a link to research.
Hubris and woffle are actually unsupported opinion and that is exactly what you provide in every single one of your posts, and hand wave away any attempt to instruct you in this theory you lot know little about.
You are a total waste of space on a debating forum. After the calibre of evo I have come across previously you have nothing to toot your horn about. They would disown you.
Here go more personal attacks. I often see those come up when my opponent has been routed.

I am not making any claims. We are talking about your claims. If I am not making any claims, what links would I post to support that?

I figured your response to refuting your abuse of evidence would be something like this. Nothing new, nothing original. I am surprsied you didn't go "nyah, nyah, nyah" "I'm telling my mommy."

“The strength of science is”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

founded in facts.

#60700 Nov 24, 2012
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
Ok Suds, you can wriggle and squirm as much as you like. The fact is that only evomorons try to maintain that no creationist has appropriate qualifications to have made an informed choice to leave their TOE faith for another.
What are your qualifications? If they are so great, you won't mind relating them to us.

“The strength of science is”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

founded in facts.

#60701 Nov 24, 2012
anonymous wrote:
<quoted text>In this particular instance, I think reading on Ardipithicus ramidus is a good start.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ardipithecus
Thanks for the recommendation.
anonymous

Franklin, PA

#60702 Nov 24, 2012
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh lovey, the link you provided speaks to Lucys pelvic reconstruction? I wasn't even going to mention that yet. When do you suppose they suddenly realized the need to reconstruct it to have an illiac flare?
If Lucys pelvis is such a great example of a primitive obligate bipedal ape then why do some well credentailled evo scientists provide good research for Lucy being a chimp ancestor? The fact is that now scientists have less idea what the common ancestor may have looked like than ever before.
There is a stack of research into bipeadism going back as far as the orang common ancestor, because they actually have what they believe are orang ancestor fossils, no chimps or gorillas but.
All announcements are new announcements at some time as was mankinds knucklewalking ancestry and as is anything you present that is recent. Your skepticism is not support for much at all.
It is an insult to direct me to a simplistic Wiki site. You are the one that needs to start there.
You're grasping at straws. The evidence is what the evidence is. Every little condition that doesn't meet your expectation doesn't prove Creationism.

I don't really need to go to edgy sites because I'm not in that field of study and I really prefer a nice centralized site with well formatted material. If I wanted parsed out tidbits of individual research, I could always pursue the posted sources on Wikipedia or go to other scientific publications.

I'm not the one who's looking to for a reason to disagree with what the vast majority of researchers say.

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
What are you thinking about now? (Jun '10) 5 min -Lea- 25,494
Change 1 letter game! (Nov '11) 6 min Old Sam 2,927
How Long Have You Won in "Last Post Wins" thread? (Jan '09) 11 min Old Sam 6,813
3 Word Advice (Good or Bad) 11 min -CatCiao- 222
A To Z Of Movies (Sep '12) 13 min Old Sam 4,312
Mystery man hands out $100 bills in Massachusetts 14 min -CatCiao- 19
New "Drop one Word" With Famous People's Names (Oct '12) 14 min Old Sam 426
Is it possible to....... 17 min Dr Wu 515
True or False Game 38 min Old Sam 1,242
What song are you listening to right now? (Apr '08) 54 min Crazy Beautiful 152,347
Merry Christmas Topix, Thanks For,...? 1 hr -Lea- 70
More from around the web