Evolution vs. Creation

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

Since: Sep 12

United States

#60806 Nov 24, 2012
Jim wrote:
There is records St. Nicholas existed but none of Jesus. There is proof of evalution but none of creation.
Wrong again their is proof of Jesus just none that he is the son of God unless you have faith to believe he is who he said he is.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#60807 Nov 24, 2012
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
My name is not mav, and you keeping sprooking you have done many things on many topics, but never seem to be able to repost your wonderful replies. I think you are playing games with yourself.
I also think you have little awareness of the theory you so sadly try to defend.
What exactly did you say to suggest the past decade of shoving junk dna down creos throats as your precious evidence against creationism shouldn't leave you lot humimilated at the thought that you presented research that was in actual fact crap? Please repost I must have missed it.
Sorry, Maz, a little bit of an error on my part. No disrespect intended there.

I don't know what you are talking about, referring to my supposed inability to repost materials. If you have a question ask me.

But I can see by IDIOT's post that I did post about evidence here, so I will give you one more chance:

It can be demonstrated that all of the scientific evidence to date supports the theory of evolution and none supports creation. This is an indisputable fact. If you are honest you will admit it to be so, if not you will deny it.

By the way, I have not been "shoving junk DNA" down anyone's throat, nor have I ever seen an evolution proponent doing so. You still are miles from proving your claim that all DNA has a use. All that has been shown is that some noncoding DNA has a use, but it is more of a bookkeeper than anything else. I am definitely not a geneticist, but that might be what one would predict when a gene fell out of use due to evolution. Why don't you find one of them and badger them about "junk DNA". Here you have definitely not made your case. Convert a geneticist and we will say that you might have something. I seriously doubt if you can.

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Everton, Australia

#60808 Nov 24, 2012
Arguing With Idiots I'd like to add this.

The most convincing demonstration that man is not related to the other apes is out chromosome count.

This fusion myth is very important to evos because without it they are going up the creek without a paddle.

The good news is that regardless of whether not human ch2 is really a Robertsons translocation is not what is imoportant. What is important is that creos have evidence that support this fusion not being the result of the fusion of 2 other ape genes. Maybe it had something to do with the fall.

So not only are humans furrless obligate bipeds that can make meaning of the world we also have a different chromosome count to our purported closest relative, effectively falsifying evolutionary theory.

There are many falsifications of TOE that we know of. Evos redefine a falsification as "heading toward the light". Obviously the light is off at present. Oh well, it makes them feel better, I guess.

However the falsification of this fusion from ape genes is truely fantastic for creos. It does not matter if evotards do not accept the data. Who would expect them to? Well done to the researchers for their work.
David F Mayer

Columbus, OH

#60809 Nov 24, 2012
Knightmare wrote:
<quoted text>
Hey now, ho there, hi there, hey there...what do you find wrong with my comment?
There are numerous evidences of and for creation. Take the Bible for instance. Take creation itself for instance.
If evolution were true, vampires, werewolves would exist. They don't. How do you account for that?
That is the most perfect example of [i]non-sequitur[/i] that I have ever read. It is on the same level as:

"If the Earth were round, then elephants could fly."

Congrats. You have hit a new high in gross stupidity.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#60810 Nov 24, 2012
Poor Maz, she still needs to get into a shorter river.

News Flash for you Maz, no one has ever debunked the Theory of Evolution ever. And it is clear by your many errors in the past here that you are not qualified to talk about the specific details of genetics. So you can trumpet your "findings" as much as you like. Until you find someone who has at least some expertise, that is someone who has some real peer reviewed articles on the topic, that supports you I will not be impressed.

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Everton, Australia

#60811 Nov 24, 2012
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Sorry, Maz, a little bit of an error on my part. No disrespect intended there.
I don't know what you are talking about, referring to my supposed inability to repost materials. If you have a question ask me.
But I can see by IDIOT's post that I did post about evidence here, so I will give you one more chance:
It can be demonstrated that all of the scientific evidence to date supports the theory of evolution and none supports creation. This is an indisputable fact. If you are honest you will admit it to be so, if not you will deny it.
By the way, I have not been "shoving junk DNA" down anyone's throat, nor have I ever seen an evolution proponent doing so. You still are miles from proving your claim that all DNA has a use. All that has been shown is that some noncoding DNA has a use, but it is more of a bookkeeper than anything else. I am definitely not a geneticist, but that might be what one would predict when a gene fell out of use due to evolution. Why don't you find one of them and badger them about "junk DNA". Here you have definitely not made your case. Convert a geneticist and we will say that you might have something. I seriously doubt if you can.
Give me one more chance to do what? Reply to this woffle. Here take a gander at this.

You say "It can be demonstrated that all of the scientific evidence to date supports the theory of evolution and none supports creation. This is an indisputable fact. If you are honest you will admit it to be so, if not you will deny it."

What the hell are you on about? You come across as so pathetically righteous and you actually start your argument with crap.

How does modern bird footprints dated to 212mya and stuck onto some mythical and undiscovered theropod support evolution better than creation?

How does sucking eggs of junk dna support evolution over creation when no junk fullfills a long lasting creationist prediction, where evos have none.

How do Michagan whales found in strata dated to 290mya that has been carbon dated and found to result in inconsistent dates leaving researchers to date puzzled as to how they got there, support evolution better than creation.

How does your evo researchers copying an already laid outline of what to expect in the fossil evidence according to Genesis support your being the first to even think of it.

By what stretch of the imagination do you propose that your changing the definition for vestigial organs into organs with a different function in response to the validation of creationist prediction, suport TOE over creationism.

How does the human/chimp Y comparison support evolution over creation when the difference is equivalent to 310 million years of separation akin to a chicken at a whopping 30% difference. This leading to more fabrications of acelerated genomic regions. How's that for fanciful thinking to explain a huge anomoly.

How does creationist algorithmic magic that supports no fusion of ape genes support evolution over creation?

How does flood geology support evolution?

I don't care if dna is a book keeper or not. It was evos that shoved junk dna as being evidence of the left overs from evolution with no function, that has slowly been falsified over time and confirmed creationist predictions, which TOE was unable to make.

Hence TOE has the predictive ability akin to a crystal ball.

So if this is your big, one more chance for me and your great arguement, you should not have bothered wasting my time. You have said nothing of substance and if I ignored such a post previously that would be why.

You again have offered your opinion based on an egotistical line of indisputeable facts that is nonsense.

Level 2

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

#60812 Nov 24, 2012
anonymous wrote:
<quoted text>
It seems that you've decided that you've already got all the answers.
What are you questing for? The perfect lie?
Liars know themselves. You are a liar.
How can human beings evolved from worms or minute organisms?
Why are humans called apes, when there is a big dichotomy between them?
Great apes any way, is just a cover.

“Darwin was right..of course.”

Level 9

Since: Jun 11

Tempe, AZ.

#60813 Nov 24, 2012
Jim wrote:
<quoted text>
If your to dumb to understand what I say your to stupid to understand anyway so spellcheck wouldn't help your stupidity.
No, but it will help yours my friend.

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Everton, Australia

#60814 Nov 24, 2012
Subduction Zone wrote:
Poor Maz, she still needs to get into a shorter river.
News Flash for you Maz, no one has ever debunked the Theory of Evolution ever. And it is clear by your many errors in the past here that you are not qualified to talk about the specific details of genetics. So you can trumpet your "findings" as much as you like. Until you find someone who has at least some expertise, that is someone who has some real peer reviewed articles on the topic, that supports you I will not be impressed.
Well if a one liner is all that is needed here from you evotards I can also provide one.

Good one lovey, if yiu can't win on science then revert to generalisyt woffle and take us back to post 1. Well done!

Here is a news flash. No one has ever falsified creationism either. Evos tried with both junk dna and vestegial organs and failed miserably, it seems, only to demonstrate indeed it is they that have no idea what they are talking about.

Level 2

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

#60815 Nov 24, 2012
anonymous wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
Really?
But not in all cases.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#60816 Nov 24, 2012
Maz, we have already gone over this many times over. Those were not "bird" footprints, they were "bird-like footprints". You need quite a bit more evidence before you can even begin to claim they are "bird footprints". Meanwhile you continue to spew your crap while ignoring the fact that it has been determined that the Archaeopteryx which your side claimed was a modern bird because it had a reversed hallux and not a transitional species at all, did not have a reversed hallux after all. So what is it now?

Meanwhile you continue to spout your crap about genetics while at the same time linking articles that show you have no clue at all.

So, what is your evidence for creation? You have failed on your evidence against evolution. I want to see if you have anything positive that you can say about the fairy tale that you believe in.

Level 2

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

#60817 Nov 24, 2012
NikkiShae wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't have to be.
Because you will never be.

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Everton, Australia

#60818 Nov 24, 2012
David F Mayer wrote:
<quoted text>
That is the most perfect example of [i]non-sequitur[/i] that I have ever read. It is on the same level as:
"If the Earth were round, then elephants could fly."
Congrats. You have hit a new high in gross stupidity.
Take this for instance.. Earth at the centre of the universe and no need for the mystery of dark energy that is meant to account for 96% of the matter of the universe and you know nothing about.

To say that such an idea unnerves many modern cosmologists would be an understatement. Modern cosmology takes as an article of faith that the Earth is nothing special. It’s called the Copernican Principle, named after Copernicus who concluded that the Sun and not the Earth was the center of our solar system. In modern science, Earth and the area around it is not allowed to be special or “favored” in any way compared to the rest of space — and it is certainly not allowed to be the center of the universe.

But Temple & Smoller’s theory suggests just such a thought.

Their shockwave has some things in its favor and some not so much so. For the former, the Earth-centered shockwave theory would also explain another phenomenon: the fact that Earth seems to be sitting in an odd “bubble of underdensity”— a region of the universe that doesn’t have much in it.

http://wallacegsmith.wordpress.com/2010/10/22...

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#60819 Nov 24, 2012
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
Well if a one liner is all that is needed here from you evotards I can also provide one.
Good one lovey, if yiu can't win on science then revert to generalisyt woffle and take us back to post 1. Well done!
Here is a news flash. No one has ever falsified creationism either. Evos tried with both junk dna and vestegial organs and failed miserably, it seems, only to demonstrate indeed it is they that have no idea what they are talking about.
No, parts of creationism have been falsified in the past. Now creationists have learned at least this lesson, if you can't prove it don't make a theory or hypothesis that claims it.

You mentioned "flood geology" that is one aspect of creationism that has been thoroughly debunked. There is no flood geology since there is no sign of a worldwide flood. None at all. This is a case where lack of evidence is evidence against. There are many smaller local floods that we have left geologic evidence. If a small flood leaves evidence why won't a gigantic flood leave any evidence?

As a result of getting their asses thoroughly handed to them in the past creationists will not form testable hypotheses or theories. If you have no theories or hypotheses by definition you cannot have scientific evidence that support your claims.

Level 1

Since: Nov 12

Location hidden

#60820 Nov 24, 2012
straa wrote:
<quoted text>
Wrong, there is nothing special about humans at all, I know you creotards have difficulty excepting that, because of your ego, first it was said that the earth is flat, then that the sun revolves around us, because we are so special, surely god would have everything revolve round us, right,, then when that was proven incorrect, you moved to we must be the only life with consiousness, and now that's not true, you creotards are saying earth is the only planet with life, and when that is disproven, what will you say then, you always have to think that you are special, that everything revolves around you, it is the thought process of a delusional mind with egomania, and an afflication all creotards suffer from it seems, they don't like the fact that we are just one species out of millions of others, and not special in any way, we are just a very small planet in a galaxy of trillions of planets, and that is just one galaxy of trillions of galaxies in the universe, which itself is just one of an infinite number of universes in the multiverse. Get this, there is nothing special about the human race, the fact that many other mammals, in particular, and certainly primates are proof enough of the non uniqueness of humans or conciousness, let your ego go, and embrace the truth, enlightenment will set you free
You're forgetting one thing, Those were human supposition, not that of the bible.
their is no proof of macro evolution
only evolution ot little or no change on small scale.

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Everton, Australia

#60821 Nov 24, 2012
Subduction Zone wrote:
Maz, we have already gone over this many times over. Those were not "bird" footprints, they were "bird-like footprints". You need quite a bit more evidence before you can even begin to claim they are "bird footprints". Meanwhile you continue to spew your crap while ignoring the fact that it has been determined that the Archaeopteryx which your side claimed was a modern bird because it had a reversed hallux and not a transitional species at all, did not have a reversed hallux after all. So what is it now?
Meanwhile you continue to spout your crap about genetics while at the same time linking articles that show you have no clue at all.
So, what is your evidence for creation? You have failed on your evidence against evolution. I want to see if you have anything positive that you can say about the fairy tale that you believe in.
Oh the master of misrepresentation.

The article itself stated that the researchers chose not to use the term bird but use 'bird like' for no reason at all.

The footprints display a reversed hallux which has always been and continues to be one of the defining features of modern birds.

These idiots use such terminology because these loosers cannot have modern birds flying arounbd 212mya. It would destroy your current bird evolution paradigm and nested heirarchies, which BTW is a mess anyway.

So don't fluff off with me.

Modern birds footprints are also able to be exactluyu what they look like. This method always confused evolutionists who sem to need some complicated convolution behind everything to twist it into an evolutionary tale.

Would you like me to present the article again? I also have stored away pictures of the footprints and they are clearly modern bird footprints, except evos can't live with the facts.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#60822 Nov 24, 2012
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
Take this for instance.. Earth at the centre of the universe and no need for the mystery of dark energy that is meant to account for 96% of the matter of the universe and you know nothing about.
To say that such an idea unnerves many modern cosmologists would be an understatement. Modern cosmology takes as an article of faith that the Earth is nothing special. It’s called the Copernican Principle, named after Copernicus who concluded that the Sun and not the Earth was the center of our solar system. In modern science, Earth and the area around it is not allowed to be special or “favored” in any way compared to the rest of space — and it is certainly not allowed to be the center of the universe.
But Temple & Smoller’s theory suggests just such a thought.
Their shockwave has some things in its favor and some not so much so. For the former, the Earth-centered shockwave theory would also explain another phenomenon: the fact that Earth seems to be sitting in an odd “bubble of underdensity”— a region of the universe that doesn’t have much in it.
http://wallacegsmith.wordpress.com/2010/10/22...
Where the Earth is in the universe has nothing to do with the theory of evolution. Nor does dark energy. Why do you even bring it up here? I won't even bother with the paper, it could be true, it would be very interesting if it was. But that does not have one whit of impact on evolution in any way at all.

So why did you bring it up here Maz?

Level 1

Since: Nov 12

Location hidden

#60823 Nov 24, 2012
Jim wrote:
There is records St. Nicholas existed but none of Jesus. There is proof of evalution but none of creation.
Their is proof, The romans spoke of Jesus as a teacher and healer.
Evolution is misleading, because evolution is possible but only on a small scale. Macro evolution is not possible.

Evolution should be called adapting.Animals only adapt they never change into a completely different species.
this is not pokemon.

I have a trantula, I've had her for a year. she knows when I open her tank, its either feeding or that want to pick her.
Did she change into another insects,No she is still a spider.

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Everton, Australia

#60824 Nov 24, 2012
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
No, parts of creationism have been falsified in the past. Now creationists have learned at least this lesson, if you can't prove it don't make a theory or hypothesis that claims it.
You mentioned "flood geology" that is one aspect of creationism that has been thoroughly debunked. There is no flood geology since there is no sign of a worldwide flood. None at all. This is a case where lack of evidence is evidence against. There are many smaller local floods that we have left geologic evidence. If a small flood leaves evidence why won't a gigantic flood leave any evidence?
As a result of getting their asses thoroughly handed to them in the past creationists will not form testable hypotheses or theories. If you have no theories or hypotheses by definition you cannot have scientific evidence that support your claims.
Oh will you get back to defending your stupid chromosome 2 fusion?

Now that you have provided your big post we have all been waiting for you had best stick to ch2. You were doing better then.

If you can't deal with the science on the table now, we have no hope of getting anywhere around flood geology.

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Everton, Australia

#60825 Nov 24, 2012
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Where the Earth is in the universe has nothing to do with the theory of evolution. Nor does dark energy. Why do you even bring it up here? I won't even bother with the paper, it could be true, it would be very interesting if it was. But that does not have one whit of impact on evolution in any way at all.
So why did you bring it up here Maz?
Because some idiot was paying out on a creationist trying to support the creation.

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) 3 min DILF 593
The Day ObamaCare died 4 min Hoosier Hillbilly 2
What Turns You Off (Jun '11) 5 min DILF 5,977
Is it possible to....... 5 min mr goodwrench 522
Man murders wife, shows parents her body on webcam (Apr '11) 6 min Hungarian 101 79
Magician wows police officers with trick to get... 7 min DILF 5
Cards Against Humanity sent people actual poop ... 9 min DILF 4
Family Feud Contestant Knows Women Have To Be '... 11 min DILF 10
What are you thinking about now? (Jun '10) 12 min -Lea- 25,523
What song are you listening to right now? (Apr '08) 13 min razz58 152,362
Merry Christmas Topix, Thanks For,...? 19 min DILF 71
El's Kitchen (Feb '09) 3 hr Grace Nerissa 37,717
More from around the web