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 2,857)

Showing posts 57,121 - 57,140 of111,548
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#61076
Nov 26, 2012
 
Bat Foy wrote:
<quoted text>
You can't prove nor make a case against FAITH. The faithful have first hand knowledge of God. Where people of science have faith in some real "smart" guy had an idea ok an educated guess but its still a guess. When the bottom line is creos are waiting for the evos to just say "I really don't know how it all came about" and lets face it evos have an idea but they do not know. It is your faith in the collective knowledge of people smarter than you coming up with a claim they know but they really don't know either. No one knows the real process of the beginning. You think it is evolution and you guys think a lot. Come off your pride and vanity accept that no one alive knows where it all started and accept the what if their was a creator.
No, scientists don't have faith in any one person. The neat thing about science is that it is repeatable. If it is not repeatable it is not science. Christine M can find evidence for evolution in her home country, write an article about it, and Kitten Koder and I can jump into a plane at SeaTac, fly over the pole and look at her evidence for ourselves.

You have some guy who supposedly talked to a burning pile of sagebrush and you want us to believe that? Where is the sagebrush? Where is the fire?
Were any audio recordings made?

Why should we believe your fictional book rather than some other fictional book? What EVIDENCE do you have that supports your book? Don't you think that the braindead of other religions claim the exact same thing about their books of magic?

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Marrickville, Australia

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#61077
Nov 26, 2012
 
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
Still waiting fot the peer reviewed data that you say you can offer...
... still waiting
I suppose you aren't bright enough to understand that the research into junk dna being at least 80% functional has been peer reviewed as has all the work that suggests so called vestigial organs have function that resulted in evos having to suck it up and change their definition of vestigial.

I also suppose you are however blind and biased enough to be totally ignorant of any creationist work nor how creos have to mask their work as evolutionary to even get it past the up themselves watch dogs.

Here is some creationist work on genetic entropy. You may now go off and search for your own algorithmic magic based on your own assumptions and try to make that dwoddle look as if it refutes Sanford.

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/332/6034/11...
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/332/6034/11...

While you're at it you may as well explain how research that suggests an overwhelmingly negative effect re epitasis does not support Sanfords claims that there are limits to the amount of adaptation and accumulation of mutations an organism can undergo without such huge costs that the process could not have continued for over 4 billion years without all organisms going into extinction.

Since: Sep 12

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#61078
Nov 26, 2012
 
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>It does not necessarily hurt anyone. But for many people it seems to turn off their cerebral cortex and turns on their limbic system. Many Christians seem angry, judgmental and deliberately ignorant.

Many feel a compulsion to reject science (all the while living in the comfort and technology science has helped provide) in favor of allegorical tales (which they mistake to be literal) in the book of Genesis. Dumbing people down is not good for anyone.
So because I like my iPhone, tv, and electricity I can't be a "real" Christian? You called Christians judgmental. I would dare say if you see an angry judgmental "Christian" they're fake. Jesus taught faith, hope , love. Rather than take my word for it read the bible start in John. If you only read one book that one is great.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#61079
Nov 26, 2012
 
Maz, did you read Dogen's article that is supposed to have effectively debunked Temple-Smoller? By the way, the article you linked was pretty bad. It called Temple and Smoller's work a theory when in reality it is not even a tested hypothesis. In other words it was not very much above a SWAG.

Dogen's article, one more time. It is more than one page long, the answer is not on the first page:

http://www.darkenergysurvey.org/science/

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#61081
Nov 26, 2012
 
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
I absolutlely love the way people make such statements like as if what is on offer is actually proven to be factual as opposed to theoretical. Just because a theory is popular does not mean it has merit.
Let's not forget that the physics of the Big bang do not make any sense and break down at the moment of the universes creation. As more biased data came in they have has to now place the material universe on the outer edge of a bubble. That is the latest.
Of course BB in its entirety requires that 96% of the matter in the universe to be dark energy, a mysterious substance they know nothing about except it gives them an insertion value that helps some of the muddle but does not save the physics breaking down.
Many researchers are looking for new theories because they can see BB is problematic.
http://wallacegsmith.wordpress.com/2010/10/22...
I have posted the above many times previously.
This is another theory, still based on a big bang style model, that by placing the earth at the centre of the universe does not require the mystery of dark energy and still aligns with theories of general relativity.
Further to that the best challenge to it, the predicted afterglow, is now being challenged as some galaxies do not cast the intergalactic shadow that should be seen. This info is not very pubicized.
The other challenge is that scientists can't stand the thought that the earth is placed in a special position, because that may actually get people believing they have support for Gods and such things and they can't have that going on at all.
Hence to offer a premise as fact based on a model that is problematic is really not a fact at all.
What is observed is that all galaxies, except Andromeda, are moving away from the earth. It is atheists prticularly that support the Copernican principle that the earth and man is not special. Then theists follow them because they actually believe these speculators know what they are talking about and have evidence.
So researchers build algorithms and models that explain why indeed what we observe is not real at all and why their algorithmic magic and speculative modelling is actually more factual than observation. Atheists, in particular, are very skilled at this task.

One wrong thing after another.

First, theories EXPLAIN facts and make predictions. Good theories (like evolution and atomic theory) do this well.

Second, your "new theory" is just the Temple & Smoller hypothesis which fell apart with the observation of dark energy around the Magellanic Clouds. Now that dark energy has been observed there is no need for Temple & Smoller. They both have been remarkably silent since this research has been published.

Third, there are about 100 galaxies moving TOWARD us (blue shifted). Not just one.
http://www.physlink.com/education/askexperts/...

Can't you get anything right?

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#61083
Nov 26, 2012
 
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
I suppose you aren't bright enough to understand that the research into junk dna being at least 80% functional has been peer reviewed as has all the work that suggests so called vestigial organs have function that resulted in evos having to suck it up and change their definition of vestigial.
I also suppose you are however blind and biased enough to be totally ignorant of any creationist work nor how creos have to mask their work as evolutionary to even get it past the up themselves watch dogs.
Here is some creationist work on genetic entropy. You may now go off and search for your own algorithmic magic based on your own assumptions and try to make that dwoddle look as if it refutes Sanford.
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/332/6034/11...
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/332/6034/11...
While you're at it you may as well explain how research that suggests an overwhelmingly negative effect re epitasis does not support Sanfords claims that there are limits to the amount of adaptation and accumulation of mutations an organism can undergo without such huge costs that the process could not have continued for over 4 billion years without all organisms going into extinction.
What a liar! Those are not creation science and you misrepresented their work, in other words you lied about that too.

Those are molecular biologists who clearly believe the theory of evolution and were looking for limiting factors on the speed that bacteria can evolve.

Very nice, since there is not creationist peer reviewed articles Maz thinks it is fine to hijack some of that of evolutionists.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#61084
Nov 26, 2012
 
Constitution-lover wrote:
<quoted text>
I have learned from many books. But only the Bible is Gods word. I dont see why you would read so many books written by men and believe them but wont believe Gods holy word.
And again, what is your evidence that the Bible is your god's word?

Your Bible can be shown to be wrong, have internal inconsistencies, it shows evidence of being rewritten after the fact for some of its prophesies and many other faults. In other words it has the same faults that any other religious work of man claiming to know how the world was made has.

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Marrickville, Australia

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#61085
Nov 26, 2012
 
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
You said one truth in there. Evolution is still not the most popular theory, it's just provided us with the most benefits, your creationist mythology is actually more popular, and it's not produced anything beneficial. You just defeated your own argument, thank you for conceding that the theory of evolution is beneficial.
You are more of an idiot than I ever suspected. I have never stated that creation is the most popular theory at all.

So you create your own misinformation and then apply it.

Indeed if these stupid researchers had of listened to creos they would not have wasted over a decade just working out that non coding dna was functional. This may have allowed the advancement of genetic therapies to advance much quicker than they have by wasting time chasing ghosts and evolutionary assumptions.

It is not the theory of evolution that has provided a benefit to the population you silly one. The benefit has come from observed research in the here and now.

In fact some researchers that are also evos are suggesting that indeed some evolutionary assumptions around retrovirus have hindered medical advancement in the treatment of aides.

http://www.originofaids.com/
http://www.originofaids.com/articles/early.ht...

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Marrickville, Australia

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#61086
Nov 26, 2012
 
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
What a liar! Those are not creation science and you misrepresented their work, in other words you lied about that too.
Those are molecular biologists who clearly believe the theory of evolution and were looking for limiting factors on the speed that bacteria can evolve.
Very nice, since there is not creationist peer reviewed articles Maz thinks it is fine to hijack some of that of evolutionists.
I am not a liar you dickweed.

Just because a scientists still accept TOE when their assumptions and predictions are falsified does not mean I am a liar.

That fact that you have such a hard time accepting the obvious is a clear demonstration that you are the point leader here because you post the most woffle.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#61088
Nov 26, 2012
 
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
I suppose you aren't bright enough to understand that the research into junk dna being at least 80% functional has been peer reviewed

True, but that in no way supports creationism. In reality this is just more clarification of what DNA does and its role in evolution.
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text> as has all the work that suggests so called vestigial organs have function that resulted in evos having to suck it up and change their definition of vestigial.

Complete lie.

Your opinions are about as useful as nipples on a man.
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text> I also suppose you are however blind and biased enough to be totally ignorant of any creationist work

Creationist work. Now there is an oxymoron for the books. Its right up there with "reality television".
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text> nor how creos have to mask their work as evolutionary to even get it past the up themselves watch dogs.

You mean they have to go to work and do real science?!?!?! Oh the humanity!
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text> Here is some creationist work on genetic entropy.
All this has been refuted. There is a reason Sanford never tried to publish it in peer review. He did make a bundle selling his book to gullible morons, however.
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text> You may now go off and search for your own algorithmic magic based on your own assumptions and try to make that dwoddle look as if it refutes Sanford.

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/332/6034/11...
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/332/6034/11...

Funny, neither of these supports Sanford, a point I guess you are hoping people won't notice.
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text> While you're at it you may as well explain how research that suggests an overwhelmingly negative effect re epitasis does not support Sanfords claims that there are limits to the amount of adaptation and accumulation of mutations an organism can undergo without such huge costs that the process could not have continued for over 4 billion years without all organisms going into extinction.

Then you must be at a loss to explain why it DID happen. Logically speaking, if something happened it MUST be possible. Don't you think?

Your posts are no challenge.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#61089
Nov 26, 2012
 
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
I am not a liar you dickweed.
Just because a scientists still accept TOE when their assumptions and predictions are falsified does not mean I am a liar.
That fact that you have such a hard time accepting the obvious is a clear demonstration that you are the point leader here because you post the most woffle.
Yes, you are a liar. You know it, I know it, the only fools you might put this over on are your fellow creatards.

That was not creationist work you linked. It does not support creationism in any way. The scientists working on it don't believe your nonsense.

It is a pretty sad state for your side when you have to steal and misrepresent the work of others.

By the way, how is that Blue Waffle of yours doing?

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#61090
Nov 26, 2012
 
Constitution-lover wrote:
<quoted text>
The Bible tells us it is the word of God. And my heart also tells me so. It has never been proven wrong....Please do tell me how your lies change the Bibles truths. I do care if yoru soul is lost. But I will serve and love God and be with him in heaven. Please turn from your sin and find Gods love and study his holy word.

Muslims believe in their heart that the Koran is the word of god. They will tell you it has never been proven wrong (and actually they have a better case). They will tell you that if you do not believe as they do that your soul is lost.

On behalf of all the Muslims in the world I implore you to serve and love Allah and be with him in heaven. Please turn from your sin and find Allah's love and study his holy word.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#61091
Nov 26, 2012
 
Constitution-lover wrote:
<quoted text>
The Bible tells us it is the word of God. And my heart also tells me so. It has never been proven wrong....Please do tell me how your lies change the Bibles truths. I do care if yoru soul is lost. But I will serve and love God and be with him in heaven. Please turn from your sin and find Gods love and study his holy word.
Yes, and every other holy book claims the same thing and their adherents feel the same way that you do.

So why should I believe your book of fluff over the thousands of others out there. Most of them have a much better heaven than yours does so doesn't it make more sense to go with the one with the best after life?
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#61092
Nov 26, 2012
 
Constitution-lover wrote:
<quoted text>
No just spreading his word and being a good faithful servant.
Yes, like I said you're just another fundie with a big mouth who thinks his baseless religious opinions are relevant.(shrug)

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Marrickville, Australia

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#61093
Nov 26, 2012
 
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
I suppose you aren't bright enough to understand that the research into junk dna being at least 80% functional has been peer reviewed as has all the work that suggests so called vestigial organs have function that resulted in evos having to suck it up and change their definition of vestigial.
I also suppose you are however blind and biased enough to be totally ignorant of any creationist work nor how creos have to mask their work as evolutionary to even get it past the up themselves watch dogs.
Here is some creationist work on genetic entropy. You may now go off and search for your own algorithmic magic based on your own assumptions and try to make that dwoddle look as if it refutes Sanford.
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/332/6034/11...
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/332/6034/11...
While you're at it you may as well explain how research that suggests an overwhelmingly negative effect re epitasis does not support Sanfords claims that there are limits to the amount of adaptation and accumulation of mutations an organism can undergo without such huge costs that the process could not have continued for over 4 billion years without all organisms going into extinction.
SubductionZone, How does the overwhelmingly negative effects of epitasis support TOE better than John's theory of gentic entropy?

3. Selection can’t stave off deterioration—there are a number of reasons for this:

http://advindicate.com/...

Actually I am keen for some evo to evoke those long lost research skills and find the usual banter that evos offer to refute Sanford. All that woffle was before recent work actually supports Sanfords work again.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#61094
Nov 26, 2012
 
Constitution-lover wrote:
<quoted text>
God made it all. He has been here since the dawn of time and will be here long after time ends. CANT CHANGE FACTS.
Correct. I have been Touched by His Noodly Appendage! ALL HAIL THE FSM!

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#61095
Nov 26, 2012
 
Constitution-lover wrote:
<quoted text>
THE BIBLE IS THE PROOF.....For thousands of years it has remained the same. Showing Gods hand on it.

The Diamond Sutra is older and it has remained the same showing Buddha's hand on it!

Epic of Gilgamesh predates Genesis and is where the flood story came from (word for word in some places). Obviously gods hand is on this pagan legend.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#61096
Nov 26, 2012
 
Generals General wrote:
<quoted text>
The theory that Temple Smoller advocate is a stunning one that has immense implications for cosmology , science and mans place in the universe since earth being the center of the universe couldn't be accidental. Its strange that this theory isn't widely known.
Probably because it's BS.(shrug)

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#61097
Nov 26, 2012
 
Constitution-lover wrote:
<quoted text>
THE BIBLE IS THE PROOF.....For thousands of years it has remained the same. Showing Gods hand on it.
Again it is your soul. Burn for eternity or live in glory in heaven. Your choice.
Oha nd tell me what is so hard about being a Christian that you cant do it?
No, the bible is a bunch of assertions. I ask for proof and you just keep circling around with your assertions. Where is your evidence?
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#61098
Nov 26, 2012
 
Kong_ wrote:
<quoted text>
Uh....since we cannot detect the EDGES of the universe, there is no way we can calculate the CENTER of the universe.
You will, of course, reply that science has shown that (most) all other galaxies are moving away from us. This is true,*BUT*(most)all other galaxies are moving away FROM EACH OTHER as well. So in that regard, EVERY galaxy could say THEY are the center of the Universe.
Or do you have a link that says different?
He has a special decoder ring with personal link to the Almighty. That not good enough for ya?

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

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 57,121 - 57,140 of111,548
|
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.

108 Users are viewing the Weird Forum right now

Search the Weird Forum:
Topic Updated Last By Comments
What song are you listening to right now? (Apr '08) 14 min Roy 140,279
New Orleans Mayor.... 28 min dragoon70056 2
BAN(N) the P0STER Above you !!! 31 min dragoon70056 1,599
How to become Unbannable 50 min Toasted Poster 56
Fat people shoud be banned from water parks,imo (Jul '13) 53 min The truth 73
***Keep a Word~Drop a Word*** (Jan '10) 54 min curiouslu 76,572
Last 3 Letters into 3 new words. (Dec '08) 56 min Trouser Cough 53,681
What are you thinking about now? (Jun '10) 2 hr SimplyLoveYou 14,104
•••
•••
Enter and win $5000
•••
•••