Evolution vs. Creation

Full story: Best of New Orleans

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

Comments (Page 2,844)

Showing posts 56,861 - 56,880 of111,871
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Marrickville, Australia

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#60793
Nov 24, 2012
 
timn17 wrote:
<quoted text>Hilarious. The funny thing is, I actually think that you truly believe that you have offered a compelling argument. You don't have a clue what we are talking about, and you keep proclaiming "victory." This isn't a competition, but if it was, you would be losing badly. You already demonstrated how ignorant you are on the subject when you posted evidence for me without realizing it, and then when it was pointed out to you you inexplicably defended your original post - claiming that your quote was evidence for your assertion. Hilarious.
I kno I am not loosing the points I have made because so far you lot have tried to talk junk dna, vestigial organs, ervs, fossil evidence, and now the supposed human chromosome 2 fusion.

If you are as smart as you would like to think you are you can then address the refute I posted previously and perhaps offer an explanation as to why shortening and duplications demonstrate 'sameness'.

I'll concede when you evos finally admit that the research you are presenting is not empirical evidence for anything or if it is then creationist magic based on different assumptions can also be just as compelling. This is the truth.

Evos would rather remain egotistical liars then to fess up to the truth.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#60794
Nov 24, 2012
 
Mav, have I gone through scientific evidence with you on this thread?

Since: Sep 12

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#60795
Nov 24, 2012
 
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>I kno I am not loosing the points I have made because so far you lot have tried to talk junk dna, vestigial organs, ervs, fossil evidence, and now the supposed human chromosome 2 fusion.

If you are as smart as you would like to think you are you can then address the refute I posted previously and perhaps offer an explanation as to why shortening and duplications demonstrate 'sameness'.

I'll concede when you evos finally admit that the research you are presenting is not empirical evidence for anything or if it is then creationist magic based on different assumptions can also be just as compelling. This is the truth.

Evos would rather remain egotistical liars then to fess up to the truth.
I think rather than evos being liars I see it more as an unwillingness to see the other side. Theory is nothing more than a smart person guess. The trouble with evolution is the beginning. What I call adaptation evos call proof and they use it to laugh in the face of the cros. Evos will not ever be able to "convert" or convince the truly faithful because faith is believing without knowing all the facts. Most of the time science won't be able to reproduce, prove, or explain the "miracles" of the bible to evos its just a story to the faithful it is truth. However my faith hurts no one. I find it funny that my faith sends evos into a type or nerd rage where they compete for several thousand posts to prove that God isn't real. I wonder now that Christmas is coming up if they will spend as much time trying to prove their is no Santa.

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Marrickville, Australia

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#60796
Nov 24, 2012
 
MazHere wrote:
Come on you have failed every challenge so far you evos with your huge rubbish bin of evolutionary delusions past that you have shoved down creos throats for decades.
Try hanging on at least to your ch2 evidence as pitiful as it is.
Refute this work with your own algorithmic magic.
http://creation.com/chromosome-2-fusion-2
Your one point Tim, does not refute the basis of my argument against the ch2 fusion.

There are heaps of points in the article above. Pick one and defend it with your own algorithmic magic and then with a straight face infer your woffle is better than the above.

You have already demonstrated you are fools with all your woffle around dna, clutching at the last 20% only to have that ripped out of your quivering hands.

I doubt there is any research from 10 years ago that remains valid today from this mess of yours.

What is hilarious is that you have failed on a multitude of supposed evo supports that have been unpacked into the speculative woffle they are.

Now you have ch2 fusion on the table and you are still unable to address anything I put to you.

Here is a bit,,

"The most startling outcome of this analysis is that the fusion site did not align with chimp chromosome 2A, one of the supposed pre-fusion precursors. Furthermore, the alignment at two locations on chromosome 2B, an internal euchromatic site and the telomere region of its long arm, did not match predicted fusion-based locations based on the fusion model. If the fusion model was credible, this should have produced an alignment with the telomeric region on chimpanzee 2B on the short arm."

How does this below gel with being the same?..

These regions are therefore major sites housing genes that have undergone human lineage-specific copy number increases and contain sequences that have dispersed in a human-specific fashion to novel regions of the genome, an example being the sequence f7501 that has a single copy in non-human primates and 7-11 copies in humans at subtelomeric locations on multiple chromosomes.

http://carta.anthropogeny.org/moca/topics/tel...

Indeed I suggest the fusion site is not the same as 2a and 2b fused at all. There are genes on the human fusion site that chimps do not have, there are copy number increases, duplications and sequences that have 'dispersed' and f7501 that has a single copy in non-human primates and 7-11 copies in humans at subtelomeric locations on multiple chromosomes.

Depending on where you look, one chromosome section may be longer or shorter than the match of the other species, because one species or another lost or gained some genetic code relative to the other. In this example, the human chromosome 2 is longer than chimp 2A+2B. In other chromosomes and locations, the chimp DNA&#65279; grew from repeated patterns and new genes, compared to humans, and vice versa also occurs.

In other words the site is not the same at all as chimp 2a and 2b fused. In fact evos suggest the genome has evolved in both lines since the common ancestor so nor should much of it be like chimps today. Evos have just found some algorithmic magic to wave away the difference in chromosome number and that is all. Without that surely TOE would be shot to pieces. Is that not the truth?

The other concern is that there aren't 2 populations of humans with 2 different chromosme counts around. If ch2 fused in the human line this becomes even a more ridiculous and non plausible arguement.

Level 3

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#60797
Nov 24, 2012
 
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
I kno I am not loosing the points I have made because so far you lot have tried to talk junk dna, vestigial organs, ervs, fossil evidence, and now the supposed human chromosome 2 fusion.
If you are as smart as you would like to think you are you can then address the refute I posted previously and perhaps offer an explanation as to why shortening and duplications demonstrate 'sameness'.
I'll concede when you evos finally admit that the research you are presenting is not empirical evidence for anything or if it is then creationist magic based on different assumptions can also be just as compelling. This is the truth.
Evos would rather remain egotistical liars then to fess up to the truth.
"Sameness" is not the issue. You keep demonstrating how little you understand this issue.
just t
"Refute" is not a noun. Learn the language. Just thought you should know.

There's no point in talking to you. I've learned that. You spam stuff you don't understand, and then when you get called out, you spam it again and claim that no one has responded to you. You're delusional.
ARGUING with IDIOTS

Chico, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#60798
Nov 24, 2012
 
Subduction Zone wrote:
Mav, have I gone through scientific evidence with you on this thread?
Why don't you give us an example of scientific evidence for the number 5?

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Marrickville, Australia

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#60799
Nov 24, 2012
 
Subduction Zone wrote:
Mav, have I gone through scientific evidence with you on this thread?
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.

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Marrickville, Australia

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#60800
Nov 24, 2012
 
timn17 wrote:
<quoted text>"Sameness" is not the issue. You keep demonstrating how little you understand this issue.
just t
"Refute" is not a noun. Learn the language. Just thought you should know.
There's no point in talking to you. I've learned that. You spam stuff you don't understand, and then when you get called out, you spam it again and claim that no one has responded to you. You're delusional.
No indeed it is you evos that say such thing as the fusion site is 'the same'. Some. maybe you, conceded not the same by almost the same, whatever that means.

This is your terminology so you stick with it.

So if the terminology is not meant to say the same or nearly the same, what terminology would you like to substitute instead.

The other thing is with all your rantings you have not addressed the research I post from creos. How can we tell that you actually know what you are supporting if you cannot refute that work with your own algorithmic magic.

Level 3

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#60801
Nov 24, 2012
 
More crap from creationist sites, maz. There's no point in talking to you. You haven't made an argument against chromosome 2. You spam stuff you don't understand, and then claim a "win." You're an idiot.

And what have you "put to me" about chromosome 2? You have spammed creationist links, which are automatically invalid, and you have posted things that are either irrelevant or support my position. And you are too dull to see that. You can spam all you want, I'm done talking to you. You are incapable of understanding even the simplest of concepts, and you are incapable of even considering anything that conflicts with your creation hypothesis. This is pointless. It's like talking to a brick wall. Have fun talking to yourself. Learn to converse like a human being instead of constantly repeating yourself and spamming - educate yourself on the things you claim to be an authority on, and stop being an idiot in general, and maybe we'll talk.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#60802
Nov 24, 2012
 
ARGUING with IDIOTS wrote:
<quoted text>
Why don't you give us an example of scientific evidence for the number 5?
You are just bound and determined to demonstrate that you are an idiot.

Level 3

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#60803
Nov 24, 2012
 
"Your one point Tim, does not refute the basis of my argument against the ch2 fusion."

LOL. What argument? Your spam that you don't understand? Your creationist sites? Your spam that supports my argument? Fail.

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Marrickville, Australia

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#60804
Nov 24, 2012
 
ARGUING with IDIOTS wrote:
<quoted text>
Why don't you give us an example of scientific evidence for the number 5?
Do you mean this one?.

5.No evidence of synteny with chimp for the purported fusion site was found. The 798-base core fusion-site sequence does not align to its predicted orthologous telomeric regions in the chimp genome on chromsomes 2A and 2B.

They should be able to use their own magic to address that, unless of course you and I are arguing with idiots.

Since: Sep 12

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

Marrickville, Australia

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

Marrickville, Australia

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

Seattle

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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.

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

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 56,861 - 56,880 of111,871
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

•••
•••
Enter and win $5000
•••
•••