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 2,861)

Showing posts 57,201 - 57,220 of106,075
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#61123
Nov 26, 2012
 
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
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.

Sorry, but you are misrepresenting what KK said.


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.
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text> 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.

Why not? First of all creotards only started saying this recently and second this is necessary science.
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text> This may have allowed the advancement of genetic therapies to advance much quicker than they have by wasting time chasing ghosts and evolutionary assumptions.

The evolutionary facts are in the DNA. We can trace human lineage back just using DNA. genetic and other evolutionary medical breakthroughs have continued all along.
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text> It is not the theory of evolution that has provided a benefit to the population you silly one.

False. Evolutionary medicine is the area(s) of medicine that are making the most breakthroughs.
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text> The benefit has come from observed research in the here and now.

Blah, blah, blah.... assertion, assertion assertion and not a fact to be found.
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text> 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...

You will swallow any crap available, won't you. Another loonie who follows loonies.

"Leonard Horowitz is a former dentist, anti-vaxxer, promoter of various "natural cures," and self-publisher of books and pamphlets expressing such unfounded beliefs as that the AIDS and Ebola epidemics were intentionally caused by the U.S. government. "
http://www.skepdic.com/horowitz.html

The guy is a con artist.

I had no respect for you to begin with and you just lost the rest.(note the irony)

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Marrickville, Australia

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#61124
Nov 26, 2012
 
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
And how many times do you have to be told that Sanford was debunked long ago. Only cretinists refer to him today.
And how many times do I have to remind you that you are on a debating forum and are actually meant to be able to contruct an intelligent debate.

Even if you found the refute you would not understand it, nor be able to debate it because you have demonstrated you are an uneducated boofhead.

Subs big scientific refute on a debating forum is. wait for it,........"Sanford was debunked long ago".

These simplistic replies of yours continue to prove you are simplistic and not fit to debate in proper forum style. Obviously a less moderated forum is going to attract all sort of simpletons that actually have no clue past arguing 'they said so'..

Not being informed is not the problem. The problem is when evod pretend they are informed and then can only present crap such as what you comeup with.

Now, do please tell us how the research into epitasis does not support Sanfords work, if you can? Which, of course, my bet is you can't..
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#61126
Nov 26, 2012
 
MazHere wrote:
My theory of creation is already set out in Genesis. Genesis continues to be validated. At least Genesis provides an account to support of falsify. Where as TOE continues to change the scenarios that support it and any old story will do.
Translation - Genesis is ancient dogma that you can interpret to your convenience while science adapts to new evidence. Remember you DID claim that Genesis "predicted" the correct order of events as science allegedly discovered "later", despite the fact that science does NOT support the sun coming AFTER plants.
MazHere wrote:
My creationist theory is that there is a God and that God can use his ENERGY to create matter
What energy and how? First can you demonstrate this god of yours exists via the scientific method?
MazHere wrote:
Hence the 'mechanism' for creation is supported.
What mechanism? You just said energy can create matter therefore Goddidit with magic. Where's the science?
MazHere wrote:
Eg fossils found in line with Genesis as opposed to TOE
and modern leatherback turtles at the bottom?
MazHere wrote:
moon created after the earth as opposed to initial scientific thinking
And sun after plants. Oops. PLEASE demonstrate the scientific evidence that demonstrate that plants arose BEFORE the sun.
MazHere wrote:
Being created by a creator predicts no requirment for left over ‘junk’ dna nor left over functionless organs from ‘evolution‘, quite the opposite to TOE.
Until you start addressing rebuttals every time you repeat this, you are lying.
MazHere wrote:
This is the lack of scientific integrity that creationists come against and have to battle against continually.
Yes, young Earth, old Earth - doesn't matter. Hypocrites like you can use both.
MazHere wrote:
I claimed victory in demonstrating over a week or so that indeed what evolutionists call empirical evidence isn’t any better than what creos have to offer.
And your victory is at least as equal to that of the Black Knight. WELL DONE FINE WARRIOR SIR!
MazHere wrote:
What predictions does TOE offer that were not made in hindsight and actually are predictions? That should not be difficult for evos to research and find. If you need help I can post a dandy!
Transitional fossils, as predicted by Darwin. In fact I already presented this to you numerous times over. Yet for some strange reason here you are asking for it again. And later on you will ask it again. Not that you haven't been given the answers required, but you have only been given that answer that reality is theologically inconvenient to creationists.

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#61129
Nov 26, 2012
 
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
I have been speaking to evidence and you totally ignore it. There is fossil evidence in birds and whales that is more supportive of creation then TOE.
What do you evos expect to find? Are you expecting libraries of outdated woffle and speculation as proof that creos can supply support.
Are non thinking evos expecting creos to support creationism by refering to evolutionary assumptions and interpretations that change like the wind? That sounds like a great idea..NOT!
Why don't you show us all how clever you are by refuting Sanford with new research in mind, seeing as you evos are too ignorant to realize that creos do actually have their own supports to present?
Instead of trying to validate your existence with woffle why don't you come up with a great TOE prediction evos made that has actually eventuated?
The answer to the questions above is that it is much easier to go 'quack' than it is to have some substance to add to the discussion.
No, you are just making assertions and attempting to discredit everything using the same evidence that supports it or issues that have been addressed, then when others point out how wrong you are, you ignore it and just start posting more junk science.

Good example "why don't you come up with a great TOE prediction evos made that has actually eventuated?" .... answered, answered so many times the only way to have missed that answer is if you purposefully, as a method of lying, ignored those answers.

You need to learn how to learn, and I can't help you with that.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#61130
Nov 26, 2012
 
Constitution-lover wrote:
What I dont get is that being a Christian is easy and it is all about leading a good life. Nothing about being a Christian will harm you or hurt you in any way. Following Gods word is good for you and will bring you joy and happiness. Being a Christian is easy and means freedom for eternity. WHY DONT PEOPLE DO IT....
Tell me how does being a Christian hurt anyone?
Creationists lie. Constantly. That's not leading a good life. They seem to think otherwise.

(Note I did not place Christians in general into that category)

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#61131
Nov 26, 2012
 
Constitution-lover wrote:
<quoted text>
Following God is not wasting your life but extending it for eternity......I care very much for humanity. Why do you think I spread Gods word. Oh and knowing your gonna go to heaven is HOPE for the future.What you have is only eternity in hell....That is not good.
So you hate life, you hate life so much you want another one. Greedy, aren't you?

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#61132
Nov 26, 2012
 
Constitution-lover wrote:
<quoted text>
No I did not. The Bible is my proof.....I gave the proof.
Again, the bible is a bunch of assertions, that is not evidence. I asked for evidence, present it or stop bothering us with this failed assertion.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#61134
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.
No they don't. That's why it's called FAITH. If they had first hand knowledge of God it would simply be called KNOWLEDGE.

Fact of the matter is that no-one on Earth knows jack about God any more than anyone else does. And that's assuming that such an entity exists in the first place.
Bat Foy wrote:
Where people of science have faith in some real "smart" guy had an idea ok an educated guess but its still a guess.
And then those guesses are tested via the scientific method. When they start making successful predictions they become more than mere "guesses" and are the formation of a valid scientific theory. Kinda like gravity.
Bat Foy wrote:
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.
No, evolution is not the beginning, not by a LONG shot. Evolution occurs only when there is life. Which has only been around these parts for 8-9 billion years AFTER the beginning of the universe.

But yes, we think a lot. Thinking is a GOOD thing. Thinking was banned by God, at least if one takes the Genesis story literally. Some are daft enough to do just that.
Bat Foy wrote:
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.
Science accepts the "what if". It's just there is simply no scientific evidence for it yet. It is pride and vanity which causes ardent theists to demand people take their baseless claims seriously, despite the fact they are in no position at all to make such claims.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#61137
Nov 26, 2012
 
MazHere wrote:
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.
Yes, they break down as soon as it reaches singularity, but after just a short time the theory starts to work. Hence it correctly predicted CMBR to very particular amounts.

Your "theory" broke down before it even started.

"Jewmagic didit" doth not explain much.
MazHere wrote:
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.
Except dark energy works. When dark matter and dark energy calculations are applied to astronomical phenomena, those phenomena are in the correct positions, while they are not under relativistic calculations.

Your calculations on the other hand, well... okay so Jewmagic is not even a calculation. Besides the universe is only 6,000 years old anyway so you have nothing to account for. Goddidit. The end. Period. HOTDAMM that's informative!
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#61138
Nov 26, 2012
 
MazHere wrote:
Here is some creationist work on genetic entropy.
Oh look! I see you're lying again. Tell us again what's the date of genomic critical mass? Come to think of it, what's the "scientific theory" of creationism?

(sound of crickets chirping)

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#61139
Nov 26, 2012
 
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
I have been speaking to evidence and you totally ignore it. There is fossil evidence in birds and whales that is more supportive of creation then TOE.

False. Birds have been around more than 225 million years (that is about 225 million years longer than most creotards thing the earth has been in existence).

Whales have know evolutionary pathway
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_cet...

[creationist posturing and empty assertions deleted at this point]
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text> Why don't you show us all how clever you are by refuting Sanford with new research in mind, seeing as you evos are too ignorant to realize that creos do actually have their own supports to present?

The new research you presented does not support creationism and does not undermine the ToE much less the proven fact of evolution. Demonstrated in previous posts.

Why can't creotards come up with any research to support their claims?
Why can't creotards develop a SCIENTIFIC theory of creationism?

The answer to the questions above is that it is much easier to go 'quack' than it is to have some substance to add to the discussion.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#61140
Nov 26, 2012
 
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
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...
Oh, you're an AIDS denier too, just like that idiot Jonny Wells and his Moonie pals. So in other words you're in DIRECT support of pseudo-scientific claptrap that KILLS people. Way to go, Jenny McCarthy.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#61141
Nov 26, 2012
 
Constitution-lover wrote:
<quoted text>
Well you have made your choice. I gave you the truth and proof. If you deny it you deny God. that doesnt bode well for your eternal soul. Hell is a horrible place.

Send us a post card when you get there.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#61142
Nov 26, 2012
 
Constitution-lover wrote:
<quoted text>
I never lied. Creation by God is real. Anyone whos heart is open to God knows this.

You did lie. You claimed the Bible as an a priori fact. You claimed the Bible is literally true. As you cannot know these things for a fact and you claim you do you have therefore LIED.

Who is the author of all lies? Say hello to your new master.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#61143
Nov 26, 2012
 
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
I am not a liar you dickweed.
Yes you are. You're a fundie.(shrug)

By the way, does Jesus approve of such venom?
MazHere wrote:
Just because a scientists still accept TOE when their assumptions and predictions are falsified does not mean I am a liar.
I thought you said evolution was non-falsifiable? Oh yeah, that was when you switched tables and claimed evolution was falsified - AFTER I gave you a bunch of potential falsifications - potential falsifications which you DID NOT meet by the way - and then claimed to have falsified evolution.

I expect to see your face on the cover of Time any day now...
MazHere wrote:
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, the obvious that you have proven everyone "wrong" with your amazing scientific JEWMAGIC. Well done Jenny.

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Marrickville, Australia

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#61144
Nov 26, 2012
 
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
Sorry, but you are misrepresenting what KK said.
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.
<quoted text>
Why not? First of all creotards only started saying this recently and second this is necessary science.
<quoted text>

The evolutionary facts are in the DNA. We can trace human lineage back just using DNA. genetic and other evolutionary medical breakthroughs have continued all along.
<quoted text>
False. Evolutionary medicine is the area(s) of medicine that are making the most breakthroughs.
<quoted text>
Blah, blah, blah.... assertion, assertion assertion and not a fact to be found.
<quoted text>
You will swallow any crap available, won't you. Another loonie who follows loonies.
"Leonard Horowitz is a former dentist, anti-vaxxer, promoter of various "natural cures," and self-publisher of books and pamphlets expressing such unfounded beliefs as that the AIDS and Ebola epidemics were intentionally caused by the U.S. government. "
http://www.skepdic.com/horowitz.html
The guy is a con artist.
I had no respect for you to begin with and you just lost the rest.(note the irony)
If you were not an evotard you would be actually able to mount appropriate responses to challenges instead of running off down the garden path of evasion and philosophical twoddle.

You think going quack quack 'con artist' solves the concern. This researcher is actually concerned about saving lives.

You quack quack about dna. Where were you when I was disussing the myth of 1%, junk dna, and the chasing of erv ghosts? What evidence in DNA are you talking about? Do you even understand what assumptions underlie genetic distancing in relation to deep ancestries? I doubt it.

You see evolutionists like to go all over the place but when refuted by providing some support they start to crap somewhere else. I responded to the claim that creos have no evidence and look at the stuggling and squirming, tail chasing and change of subjects.

I suppose you think researchers head for creationism just to purposely destroy their careers for no reason. One does not have to be a creo to have faith in God.

If you wofflers want to try to maintain that creos have NO support for their pardigm then you should be able to demonstrate for yourself and articulate what new research into epitasis does not support Sanford. Sanford provides some algorithmic magic just like evos can.

You should also be able to demonstrate how the reseachers that suggest that non coding dna is functional are idiots and wrong, because validation of predictions is a creationist supoport that evos are either too stupid to understand or too proud and ignorant to accept.

Since: Sep 12

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#61145
Nov 26, 2012
 
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>Ah, now you're trying the projection angle. Okay, at the risk of being redundant here's the typical, and factual, reply:

We do say we don't know all the time, it's you who refuses to say you don't know, you fill in the blanks with "god dun it" and then give up, we push on making things like computers, cellphones, mp3 players, etc. and you just sit back, lazily enjoying the fruits of our effort. We're just asking for the check.
Stay with me here I didn't say anything about technology I pay to play and the idea that smart people don't believe in God is a bit insulting for everyone. A lot of very smart people believe in God. Than you say the fruits of "our" efforts so how many of those things did you invent or think up or fund? Taking credit by roping yourself in with the technology in crowd doesn't make you an inventor. No more than believing in God and creation makes me the author of the bible. By the way I remodel houses in my spare time preach and work as a maintenance man I'm not lazy nor did I invent the house.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#61146
Nov 26, 2012
 
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
SubductionZone, How does the overwhelmingly negative effects of epitasis support TOE better than John's theory of gentic entropy?
Because we're still alive.
MazHere wrote:
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.
... except that Sanford is a reality-denying YEC. He refuses to take natural selection into account, genetics does not support his claims, does not support his timeframes, he can't account for the current diversification of the human population nor its continued increase in the face of what *should* be majority cancer cases across the globe, nor can he provide a date for genomic critical mass whereby the human genome is no longer viable. This may have something to do with the fact that critical mass had already been reached. Twice. Those fictions were called Genesis and Noah's Flood.

Interesting that anything you are unable to refute is only dismissed as "woffle".

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#61147
Nov 26, 2012
 
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
And how many times do I have to remind you that you are on a debating forum and are actually meant to be able to contruct an intelligent debate.
Even if you found the refute you would not understand it, nor be able to debate it because you have demonstrated you are an uneducated boofhead.

I call projection, luv.
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text> [non debate like emotional rant deleted from this point]......
Now, do please tell us how the research into epitasis does not support Sanfords work, if you can? Which, of course, my bet is you can't..

In the same way research into weggies does not support Sanfords work. Because it doesn't. Remember who has the responsibility in science. It is not the onus of the established theory to prove itself wrong, it is the responsibility of the new idea to prove it is supported better by the data and is able to make better predictions than the old theory. In other words don't try to pass the buck. Yes Sanford has been refuted. Actually he never had a leg to stand on. But that is not the point. It is UP TO YOU to provide EVIDENCE for creationism.

We are waiting.......
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#61148
Nov 26, 2012
 
Constitution-lover wrote:
Follow God or dont. You have free will. I wills erve God and spread his word.
If God exists there is no free will. If there is free will then God is not all knowing. If God is all knowing then there is no free will. Poor apologetics from creationists will now follow.

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

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 57,201 - 57,220 of106,075
|
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.

•••
•••
•••
•••